feminazis
| |
Comments(414):
aguycalledlee has disabled anonymous comments.
Refresh Comments Show GIFs 235 comments displayed.
stickied by aguycalledlee
www.lifesitenews.com/news/violent-mob-of-pro-abort-feminists-tries-to-burn-down-cathedral-attacks-pra
Link to stuff about it, in English.
aguycalledlee (OP), please pin this.
Link to stuff about it, in English.
aguycalledlee (OP), please pin this.
>Practically endgame
>Restart as different character
Hell, there might be a day I decide to make another theme account.
#378 to #377
-
canichaikait (10/22/2015) [-] I used to. I could have this account open on chrome, my previous account open in incognito, and another on firefox etc...
#266 to #100
-
somuchfreedom (10/22/2015) [-] they were fighting for the right to kill unborn children
I don't use the word pig because its offensive to Wilbur and Babe and any law enforcement.
#3 to #1
-
gragasvlad ONLINE (10/21/2015) [-] if some one threw a dirty diaper in my face, I will admit that I would legitimatly beat the crap out of them and if I thought some one would help them I would arm myself first...
VENGENCE!
VENGENCE!
Arm yourself with what? A ******* turret?
That crows looks to be in the hundreds. You start attacking, you're signing away your life to "death by mob beating".
Unless that is, you start spraying bullets into the crowd until they scatter. But then you're just committing mass murder because of a dirty diaper.
That crows looks to be in the hundreds. You start attacking, you're signing away your life to "death by mob beating".
Unless that is, you start spraying bullets into the crowd until they scatter. But then you're just committing mass murder because of a dirty diaper.
#246 to #245
-
assassindash (10/22/2015) [-] This is the kind of mob that a mass murder will make them think twice....
And is probably worth the problems it causes thereforth.
And is probably worth the problems it causes thereforth.
#301 to #246
-
potrsr (10/22/2015) [-] Well police could use water turret, paper spray, rubber bullets and so on. This was a major law breaking for public peace (don't know excat words for it in english, might be said otherwise but you know what I mean) and cops can use those. Oh but it's a woman, you can't use that on them. What's that? They are beating the crap out of people? Still can't do nothing, we will be opressing them. Can't do it, sorry
#400 to #344
-
assassindash (10/23/2015) [-] I still have a good 80% of my life to go, someone older who's approaching the last of his- Send the old people is what i'm getting at.
#402 to #401
-
assassindash (10/23/2015) [-] 18, but I guess that's only 6 years off.
Honestly though, a lot of old people would probably enjoy pulling a little purge. Hell, i've actually heard my friends grandpa saying he'd gladly shoot these, in his words, "Unappreciative little ***** right in their useless face hole if I had the legs to chase them down."
But I guess you yourself can be a little pacifist and hope they stop their **** , and convince others why they shouldn't do so as well, but if you ignore an un-obedient animal, it'll only bark louder most of the time. It's only a matter of time before more than just one or two people not only get injured, but die from these riots.
Honestly though, a lot of old people would probably enjoy pulling a little purge. Hell, i've actually heard my friends grandpa saying he'd gladly shoot these, in his words, "Unappreciative little ***** right in their useless face hole if I had the legs to chase them down."
But I guess you yourself can be a little pacifist and hope they stop their **** , and convince others why they shouldn't do so as well, but if you ignore an un-obedient animal, it'll only bark louder most of the time. It's only a matter of time before more than just one or two people not only get injured, but die from these riots.
So you're too young to do it, and your grandpa is just the right age but doesn't "have the legs to chase them down". Seems like you both like to bark but can't bite.
I'm not defending these people's actions in any way, and I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if they were to get killed while rioting. But I'm also not ignorant enough to say that everyone in that crowd needs to be exterminated. Some of them might just have been stupid enough to be misled by some movement under the guise of social justice.
But I guess that's just me being a "little pacifist".
Oh, and "un-obedient animal" sounds pretty damn ironic coming from a guy with an anarchy avatar. I'm trying to remember if I tried this hard to be edgy when I was 18, and I think I was actually pretty damn close. Give it 4 or 5 years.
I'm not defending these people's actions in any way, and I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if they were to get killed while rioting. But I'm also not ignorant enough to say that everyone in that crowd needs to be exterminated. Some of them might just have been stupid enough to be misled by some movement under the guise of social justice.
But I guess that's just me being a "little pacifist".
Oh, and "un-obedient animal" sounds pretty damn ironic coming from a guy with an anarchy avatar. I'm trying to remember if I tried this hard to be edgy when I was 18, and I think I was actually pretty damn close. Give it 4 or 5 years.
#404 to #403
-
assassindash (10/23/2015) [-] I said only 6 dude, I didn't say you were really off.
As for the people who were misled, this would be a harsh lesson to them or their friends should they survive, one that if they chose to breed with a sane individual, they could pass on. As for your harsh name calling of anarchist, let me just say that anarchy is not the want of blood shed in particular, it's a want for complete.... Anarchy, I guess. Chaos and so on.
If you just attacked a certain group, that's not anarchy, that's illegal, unless you're a king or president or whatever, mass murder.
And as for "my" obedience, it's not un-obedient to bite a hand that slaps you or your friends, even if it goes all the way through and takes their hand. Thing is, this was a violent riot, barely, if even, a protest. Riots are not a good thing unless the morality system is being ****** , but these people are just complaining about things that aren't even relevant anymore.
People through out history have been killed for much less, even entire groups as well. Saints have died due to jealousy and anger. This, this right here? These people who are misled are not saints, they aren't worth anything to society, especially if they toss their coins in for the mentally insane.
What makes me more sane then them? I attack those who attack, while they attack everything that is just and orderly. In other words, **** them. **** them and the little that they stand for.
Of course, you could take the slightly less aggressive route and sue them all for damages, all of them as a collective one by one I mean, but then that would probably just cause more riots. Death is definitely the better option here.
As for the people who were misled, this would be a harsh lesson to them or their friends should they survive, one that if they chose to breed with a sane individual, they could pass on. As for your harsh name calling of anarchist, let me just say that anarchy is not the want of blood shed in particular, it's a want for complete.... Anarchy, I guess. Chaos and so on.
If you just attacked a certain group, that's not anarchy, that's illegal, unless you're a king or president or whatever, mass murder.
And as for "my" obedience, it's not un-obedient to bite a hand that slaps you or your friends, even if it goes all the way through and takes their hand. Thing is, this was a violent riot, barely, if even, a protest. Riots are not a good thing unless the morality system is being ****** , but these people are just complaining about things that aren't even relevant anymore.
People through out history have been killed for much less, even entire groups as well. Saints have died due to jealousy and anger. This, this right here? These people who are misled are not saints, they aren't worth anything to society, especially if they toss their coins in for the mentally insane.
What makes me more sane then them? I attack those who attack, while they attack everything that is just and orderly. In other words, **** them. **** them and the little that they stand for.
Of course, you could take the slightly less aggressive route and sue them all for damages, all of them as a collective one by one I mean, but then that would probably just cause more riots. Death is definitely the better option here.
First of all you don't attack **** . You just talk.
Second, what do you think is going through their minds when they're rioting?
You think they know they're being monsters?
No, they think they're the oppressed, they're the victims, and they're the ones being attacked. Who's right here? Who's really being attacked? rhetorical
Are you in the right simply because it's your opinion that you're in the right? I guarantee you they believe they're in the right just as vehemently as you.
In your perfect world of chaos, where violence solves everything, it doesn't matter who's right. You both die because both groups will fight just as hard thinking they're standing up for what is right. Of course you'll argue that they're inferior, that they can't fight or some **** like that, but in the grand scheme it all evens out.
Just because I don't agree with your approach doesn't mean I don't agree with your position though. There are better ways to solve this issue, and as cliche as it may sound, fighting them is the worst. If you think you're going to lead a physical fight against that crowd of insane, foaming at the mouth idiots, you're just as dumb as them. You'd be giving them exactly what they want, and your actions will be seen as a confirmation of the validity of their resistance among that group.
I mean for ***** sake, open your eyes. What do you see here on this page? A post that shows us the most vile feminists I've ever seen, cherry picked for our viewing. Then we thumb it up so everyone else can see and we rage. Just build up this rage at something going on across the globe and keep it pent up while it we let it skew our opinion. It starts with "that mob", then it's
"all feminists"...but all feminists are women. " **** the women. **** all women. We need to do something about this. We need to make them know what we're capable of"
This is textbook fear mongering. The exact same kind of **** that tumblr does.
Now I know you think it's tough and brave to fight against these people. Hammer this into your head: you're wrong. Those men joining hands standing in front of the church getting feces thrown at them have so, so much more respect than some guy who sprays bullets into a crowd. And guess who is more effective?
I'll make it real simple for ya.
What do you do with a crackhead that's charged up, angry, and itching for a fist fight?
You don't ******* give him one.
**assassindash rolled image**
If you're sick of reading what i'm saying, feel free to skip to the end if you won't change your mind no matter what.
First of all, it doesn't matter if they know or understand. If they do, they deserve what's coming to them, if they don't, then they fear to try again. The problems that they see are more existential than the problems they make up. They group up and they believe they are safe because they do so. This is why they get tricked into a group system in the first place, they are but useless, misguided sheep.
Also, stop with this nonsensical ******** of chaos is not the best option. The thing about death, the thing about pain, is that nobody likes it, nobody wants it, and nobody can compare much to it. When you kill or cause pain, people are afraid, and that fear prevents further attack. Take North Korea's dictatorship, if ALL the people massed up and just straight attacked Kim, There'd be nothing left for him to rule, nothing left to hold hostage, and his economy and worth would drop to the point of worthlessness.
You get what i'm saying here? If all the protesters are dead, they'd be replaced with smarter, more read, cautious protesters, who would actually fight for the right thing, and do less damage for fear of said problems that occur.
Yes it's fear mongering, yes it's goddamn underhanded, but when you're fighting opponents who truly do not care about anything but themselves, peaceful opposition does nothing but instigate more fire.
Yes this is exactly what Tumblr does, but it's Tumblr that created these problems in the first place. Fight fire with ******* fire. Say your case and why you would if you could, so that others who could, DO.
So ill make another scenario for you.
IF you have 10 people shouting and shooting and charging 100 people, and they themselves start killing said 100 people, and converting even MORE people into their masses out of FEAR, the very same thing i'm pretty sure that allows this very riot to continue by the way, what do you fight it with?
THE SAME ******* THING WITH MORE FERVOR!
At the moment, they do this **** because they don't expect major consequence, they don't expect to get shot, they don't expect anything bad to happen because of the American way. That can only go so far in this scenario. You kill these stupid cowards, then what's left, though they still truly believe they are the victim, they will be smarter about it and less destructive. Especially if the person who's arrested for this, points out all the ******** that they did, which you know the news will absolutely ******* LOVE to do.
I guess what i'm saying is, while you believe force is the worst solution, I believe the opposite. I also believe the very method that caused the problems in the first place can also end it, which you believe will only escalate it. I believe these aren't people, but pure instinctual idiocy, built upon greed and hate. They won't stop because they think they're wrong, they never will think that, they're too afraid of what each of them will do to the other. They won't stop, and it will never end, until there's something worse for them to fear. This isn't like Ghandi and the hired people who had a conscience. This isn't like any other opposition that can be fought peacefully in fact. These aren't people.... They just shouldn't be considered people, no matter what their reasons are.
Really? That's your argument? "Just stop and agree with me"?
"Take North Korea's dictatorship, if ALL the people massed up and just straight attacked Kim, There'd be nothing left for him to rule, nothing left to hold hostage, and his economy and worth would drop to the point of worthlessness."
Fantastic example of exactly the kind of ******** that makes your ideals look childish. You romanticize violence with no regard for human life except when it comes to your own. You forget that humans aren't perfect. They're afraid of dying, or seeing their loved ones killed, or the hopelessness they'll feel when their little rebellion is crushed and they've fought for nothing. You're no different. And that's what stops you, as it should.
" Fight fire with ******* fire. Say your case and why you would if you could, so that others who could, DO. "
Ok. Except YOU can. You're calling for all out war on the streets, where humans of prime fighting age yup, that's you buddy will need to sacrifice their lives in mass for a result they will never get to see?
Except you can't be one of them, because, in your own words, you've got too much life ahead of you. Do you know how cowardly that sounds? You're preaching about how your way isn't the easy way out while you sit on your ass and try to rile people up to do your bidding.
Yeah come to think of it I am pretty sick of hearing what you're saying
#410 to #408
-
assassindash (10/23/2015) [-] And yes, human life is worthless, we remember deaths and tragedies, only so it doesn't happen again. Very few people remember all the names, very few people remember all the history, and frankly, very few people truly care enough to learn them in the first place seriously.
I believe human life is worthless, because of how many have been forgotten, because of how many are killed without second thought, because of the tragedies and the way we can be treated like cattle upon birth for others gain.
This isn't edgy, it's not dark, it's just fact. It's simply true. And you can pretend it's not that way, feign your ignorance to make yourself feel better, but in the end of it all, when you die, and when I die, we WILL be forgotten. When nations fall, presidents names will be burned, when wars destroy, kings will also, and have been before, forgotten.
In other words, get the **** off your moral high horse and come down to reality.
I believe human life is worthless, because of how many have been forgotten, because of how many are killed without second thought, because of the tragedies and the way we can be treated like cattle upon birth for others gain.
This isn't edgy, it's not dark, it's just fact. It's simply true. And you can pretend it's not that way, feign your ignorance to make yourself feel better, but in the end of it all, when you die, and when I die, we WILL be forgotten. When nations fall, presidents names will be burned, when wars destroy, kings will also, and have been before, forgotten.
In other words, get the **** off your moral high horse and come down to reality.
#409 to #408
-
assassindash (10/23/2015) [-] Yea I figured as much, but not only do I have more than enough life and opportunity ahead of me, I also don't have enough funds to effectively do what i'm saying. I can't buy a good enough gun to "go to town" so to speak, nor am I even close to the location either.
And I do understand fully the value of human life.... It's worthless. The majority is worth more than the minority, and if there's a minority attacking the majority, it should be purged.
When I said stop the nonsensical ******** about chaos, I meant to stop thinking that it's NEVER the best solution. In this prime example, it would be.
Who cares about my beliefs, or my opinions, my mentality or otherwise, it doesn't matter who hypocrisies I may bring forth, if the solution is still the same. So what if i'm not the one doing it? If it gets done, then it gets done. Yes, I'd rather someone else do it, as would many others, but that number isn't infinite.
In other words, I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me, though, it seems more you disagree with me as a person, not the idea itself, which I don't give two ***** about, and frankly, neither should you.
And I do understand fully the value of human life.... It's worthless. The majority is worth more than the minority, and if there's a minority attacking the majority, it should be purged.
When I said stop the nonsensical ******** about chaos, I meant to stop thinking that it's NEVER the best solution. In this prime example, it would be.
Who cares about my beliefs, or my opinions, my mentality or otherwise, it doesn't matter who hypocrisies I may bring forth, if the solution is still the same. So what if i'm not the one doing it? If it gets done, then it gets done. Yes, I'd rather someone else do it, as would many others, but that number isn't infinite.
In other words, I don't agree with you, and you don't agree with me, though, it seems more you disagree with me as a person, not the idea itself, which I don't give two ***** about, and frankly, neither should you.
#56
-
ScottP (10/21/2015) [-] "There are people in this world who deal only in extremes. It's naive to think that anything less than extreme measures will stop them."
- Amanda Waller
- Amanda Waller
/Rant
#81 to #67
-
dingdongpancakes (10/21/2015) [-] the video in the link provided had riot cops fire rubber bullets into the crowd
#12
-
theguywhofarted (10/21/2015) [-] It happened in Argentina, in buenos Aires. The march was called "ni una menos" (or that was the slogan at least)
The aftermath wasn't even on the news, because it was supported by both the goverment and the opposition, so it is still considered as a good and peacful way of free speech.
The aftermath wasn't even on the news, because it was supported by both the goverment and the opposition, so it is still considered as a good and peacful way of free speech.
#18 to #12
-
firetree (10/21/2015) [-] It wasn't in buenos aires, it was in Mar del plata, a city close to Buenos aires (kind of). The march itself wasnt "ni una menos", every year here in argentina there's a woman's reunion and every year they go and trash a different city. Ni una menos, was one of the topics discussed, in a way it's a meeting to debate the problematics of women in aregentinan society, and it's true what they cause to the city it's never told on news. They even tried to make it look as the people from they inside tore the gate. I have some friends that went and they are really convinced that they haven't done anything wrong. Argentina is having some major issues with extreme feminism
#85 to #2
-
itskennyandjosh (10/21/2015) [-] Honestly this is somewhat true, my sister has a 9 year old kid and a 1 year old, her boyfriend has done a better job at having a family and raising the kids than her last boyfriend who died because his dumbass mom let him have drugs after he got out of the hospital from a near death drug abuse she doesn't bother watching her kid and just leaves them with my mom who is getting too old to be raising loud kids, and my other sister doesn't even bother with her kids anymore, they would've gotten sent to a foster home if it wasn't for my mom taking them in, some women don't need to have kids if they're just gonna be like "oh aww its so cute, i'm bored now" like a ******* kid with a barbie. What i'm saying is, women well the ones i know aren't even being parents anymore and just being a waste of air
#251 to #114
-
itskennyandjosh (10/22/2015) [-] My sisters don't even have a job, ones living off of her boyfriends money and another is only dating her boyfriend so she can live in his moms house, the one who's using her boyfriend should've been aborted honestly. She's just the worst person i know, and that's the one who stopped taking care of her kids
#253 to #252
-
itskennyandjosh (10/22/2015) [-] Oh i have some more ****** up stories about my sisters if you'd like to hear them
#262 to #255
-
itskennyandjosh (10/22/2015) [-] Alright so back when my sister was living with us and my other sister came around a lot, they had a bit of a problem, and since they were broke as **** they couldn't handle the problem, so they thought it was a good idea to steal money from me, $75 in fact, so of course me being 15 at the time, i got pissed at them, and i never let them forget it, i kept annoying the **** out of them about it and questioned them, but them being assholes they'd rat each other out for a dime, so to this day i never knew who took the money, but that's not the point, a couple days after it happened my sister the one who ditched her kids went into the house and just yelled right in my face "if you don't want people taking your money don't have any or hide it" i know, stupid, right? why should i HAVE to hide money from my own ******* sisters Ooooh i was mad, i just wanted to punch her ******* face after all the **** she's done to me, but be being a pacifist didn't man up and punch the bitch and keep in mind, they're like 30 and i'm 15, yes they'd treat a kid that badly long story short, they stole money from me and i never figured out who did it, luckily i know what pisses them off and they're still paying for their **** .
Also i can PM you another story about my sisters "amazing" job at being a mother
Also i can PM you another story about my sisters "amazing" job at being a mother
#397 to #381
-
itskennyandjosh (10/22/2015) [-] I planned on stealing $75 from both of them, but sadly they're poorer than a hobo so that's not gonna work
The point of "women's liberation" was essentially to make women equal to men in society - as they damn well should be, quite frankly. Give them equal opportunities to men and let them decide what they want to do with their lives, like the autonomous individuals that they are.
If a man isn't interested in taking on responsibilities at home, no one would say that he's therefore reduced to a sex object. That would be absurd. So the same applies to women. With regard to family (though that's hardly the only important thing in life), women can now work to provide for their families just as men have always done, and each person can decide with their SO how family duties will be distributed. Perhaps they will split the work and chores equally. Perhaps the man will take on most of the household responsibilities while the woman works. Or, as is still most common, perhaps they'll mostly stick to the traditional setup wherein the mother takes on most of the household responsibilities - though nowadays the mother is likely to have a job as well.
It's every individual couple's right to make these decisions for themselves, and men and women in relationships should be on equal footing when making them. But it has to be a decision. Women have no obligation as women to bear the brunt of the homemaking duties, just as men have no obligation to be the sole breadwinners for their families. We are all autonomous creatures with our own unique situations, interests, talents and values. We do not need traditions to make our personal decisions for us.
I'd add to this that just because women are no longer subservient to their husbands does not mean most women are uninterested in having families.
#218 to #209
-
cheeseboyofdoom (10/22/2015) [-] The gentleman in question is saying that women on the whole may be more happy as caretakers and homemakers, which I don't think is all that unreasonable of an assumption.He also is a stay at home father and his wife commutes to work.
#150 to #2
-
orobas ONLINE (10/22/2015) [-] Not only considering this as a problem, but now women are asking for sexual independence and liberation, establishing freedom from men sexually, yet as our stay-at-home...not even moms, anymore. Just women. Not providing anything related to sex in marriage. Women are not financially independent. They are cancerous growths upon men, sucking us dry financially, then under their illusion of 'love' take everything we own in a divorce. Car, house, everything. And they're better off because of it. Then they move on to the next victim.
Women are not the feminine creatures they proclaim to be. They are mosquitoes, sucking the blood dry from men, convincing men that they are capable of love and emotion, when in reality, women are not capable of half the emotion, love, and work ethic men are. They advance these movements to distance themselves further and further away from the established socioeconomic role so that they grow lazier and lazier and dependent on male labor.
This is not a society of equality anymore. It is a society of matriarchy, where no matter what, all legality is slanted in the favor of women because of a falsely portrayed image.
Women are not the feminine creatures they proclaim to be. They are mosquitoes, sucking the blood dry from men, convincing men that they are capable of love and emotion, when in reality, women are not capable of half the emotion, love, and work ethic men are. They advance these movements to distance themselves further and further away from the established socioeconomic role so that they grow lazier and lazier and dependent on male labor.
This is not a society of equality anymore. It is a society of matriarchy, where no matter what, all legality is slanted in the favor of women because of a falsely portrayed image.
1) you have seen and/or experianced an unreasonable amount of women/girls behave like gold digging, lazy cunts.
2) you have been in (a) relationship(s) that went sour with a woman and you didn't take it very well.
3) you have been in (a) relationship(s) with an aforementioned cunts (and maybe you still aren't taking it very well).
4) you have been brainwashed by /pol/ and their autists
all four reasons scare me.
#44 to #24
-
theoldfritz (10/21/2015) [-] where?
after his trial he never left his farm norht of oslo
after his trial he never left his farm norht of oslo
#59 to #2
-
sweetdickwilly ONLINE (10/21/2015) [-] Varg has a couple of good points with him, but he's still extremely racist and anti-semitic.
>Implying there are no family-oriented women anymore.
>Implying one does simply find a bunch of warm, tidy, children-loving housewives among the herd of moronic groupies that musicians **** left and right like there's no tomorrow.
>Implying that he wouldn't find a decent partner if he knew where to look, and more importantly what to look for in women. Hint: Loving warm mother materials don't goddamn drive around the cities/countries chasing a black metal band.
So here's what I think: ************************** .
I traveled the world, until I found her in a SE Asian jungle, in a hut over the South China sea, here:
#316 to #313
-
brutalviking (10/22/2015) [-] But he's married and have 2 children, he was basically generalising how he sees western women. He didn't claim all women were like that.
#321 to #316
-
ciacheczko (10/22/2015) [-] I've heard of worse men being married and having children. That fact alone doesn't really tell us anything about his marriage, so there's no way to judge if he actually built a stable, nice relationship, or just found a pushover obedient and/or irrationally in love enough to stay with him. Or just scared, cause he really looks like a psycho. Rational, well-composed and self-controlling, but definitely a psycho.
But looking at the psych profile of this man, him being a hardcore traditionalist burning down the churches, murdering a fellow musician over the fact that they both ****** the same groupie, and promoting radically ethnocentric idelogy summarising name is "Neo-völkisch" that is often referred to as Nazi Satanism or Fascist Stanism... I'd say I wouldn't be married to a man even half-resemblant to Varg Vikernes, even if they paid me in solid gold for the rest of my life.
But looking at the psych profile of this man, him being a hardcore traditionalist burning down the churches, murdering a fellow musician over the fact that they both ****** the same groupie, and promoting radically ethnocentric idelogy summarising name is "Neo-völkisch" that is often referred to as Nazi Satanism or Fascist Stanism... I'd say I wouldn't be married to a man even half-resemblant to Varg Vikernes, even if they paid me in solid gold for the rest of my life.
#326 to #321
-
brutalviking (10/22/2015) [-] They've known each other since 2004, and they're working together with music and other stuff. Owning a farm in France I believe, and 2 children was a typo, I meant three. He have also changed his name to Louis Cachet, taking his wife last name to distance himself from former actions and ideologies.
Him and his wife was arrested in France though, because the french police thought they were planning a terror attack/ massacre. His wife had bought four .22 LR (legally, since she's a competition shooter) + Varg had said some anti-semitic stuff on online forums. I have no idea how they would have gone on a massacre with .22 LR, when you think about a guy in Holland shooting himself 14 times in the chest with one, and still died slowly. Also a boy in my area used his .22 LR against his head. He's now a vegetable, but still very much alive.
You said he killed Øystein over a groupie. I would like to see sources on that, because they don't know the motive for the murder other than what Varg have said himself, and according to himself he commited the murder in self-defence, cause he was sure Øystein was planning on killing him. Any other motives are just speculations.
Him and his wife was arrested in France though, because the french police thought they were planning a terror attack/ massacre. His wife had bought four .22 LR (legally, since she's a competition shooter) + Varg had said some anti-semitic stuff on online forums. I have no idea how they would have gone on a massacre with .22 LR, when you think about a guy in Holland shooting himself 14 times in the chest with one, and still died slowly. Also a boy in my area used his .22 LR against his head. He's now a vegetable, but still very much alive.
You said he killed Øystein over a groupie. I would like to see sources on that, because they don't know the motive for the murder other than what Varg have said himself, and according to himself he commited the murder in self-defence, cause he was sure Øystein was planning on killing him. Any other motives are just speculations.
#330 to #326
-
ciacheczko (10/22/2015) [-] Yes yes, I read that part of the article. I also read the rest of it, and maybe you should too, because that was not the first time Vikernes was excusing himself with the "somebody was plotting to kill me". For all I know, he seems really sociopathic, and sorry, but I refuse to believe that a man stabs someone twenty three ******* times in self defence.
#331 to #330
-
brutalviking (10/22/2015) [-] What article?
There's a lot of speculations around jealousy, money, feeeling threatened etc. But in the end, they're all just speculations.
And for all I know, you're not a psychologist so I don't see how you can diagnose people.
Also kind of fun that you first called him psycho, then you switch over to sociopath.
There's a lot of speculations around jealousy, money, feeeling threatened etc. But in the end, they're all just speculations.
And for all I know, you're not a psychologist so I don't see how you can diagnose people.
Also kind of fun that you first called him psycho, then you switch over to sociopath.
#336 to #331
-
ciacheczko (10/22/2015) [-] I used the word "psycho" coloquially, as in "madman" as in "mental". Geez, why so picky over worthless details? Don't have anything meaningful to refer to? The article you referred to, obviously, since info sounds like straight from wikipedia. I doubt that you are his fan obsessive enough to just know all the numbers and names by heart out of random. Although if you do, there's even more reason to not continue this conversation anymore, I really don't like the heavy whitening you do on an arsonist, murdered and racist hiding reasoning behind so-called speculations and supposed lacks of evidence.
#65 to #47
-
greyhoundfd (10/21/2015) [-] Remember in biology class when they taught you about mating displays? Do you think animals do that for fun?
#153 to #65
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] Well, it's usually the male that attracts the female.
But also, most animals aren't running around building cities...exploring outer space...dominating the earth. Besides, some of the most important people in human history never had children.
Tesla, Einstein, etc.
But also, most animals aren't running around building cities...exploring outer space...dominating the earth. Besides, some of the most important people in human history never had children.
Tesla, Einstein, etc.
"I had always thought of woman, as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.
But all this was in the past. Now the soft-voiced gentle woman of my reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man--in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind."
- Nikla Tesla
TL;DR Nikola Tesla never married, or had kids, because he saw women trading away their qualities for "freedom".
#154 to #153
-
greyhoundfd (10/22/2015) [-] This is true, but the idea that one can have a life is relatively new, and almost entirely a societal idea. It's not genetically programmed-in yet that you can live a satisfying life without reproduction, and so many of the things which serve as symbols of a prime mate, such as intelligence, strength, wealth, cunning, and virility were and are still important. Even if Tesla and Einstein didn't personally have children, they were still interested in achieving things conducive to reproduction, like knowledge.
#162 to #154
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] You're kinda clutching at straws arguing Tesla and Einstein did anything conducting to reproduction. I mean...consider Einstein helped develop the atomic bomb, and Tesla really laid the foundations for modern life that have consequently reduced our need for reproduction, causing this problem in the first place. ;P
Anyway, I think that argument is very weak. Most people in the past didn't live much later than 30-40 before death and disease took them. Besides, it's not like we only recently evolved intelligence Roman culture was so very much like are own. I think the biggest stress is brought on by peopple's lack of agency in the modern world. It's hard to fit in because everything is so specialized and frankly, everyone has most of their needs taken care of on a basic level in first world countries. Even the poorer individuals eat as well as the nobility of the middle ages and a computer in your bedroom is capable of providing you more entertainment and knowledge than the greatest theaters and libraries of history combined.
Anyway, I think that argument is very weak. Most people in the past didn't live much later than 30-40 before death and disease took them. Besides, it's not like we only recently evolved intelligence Roman culture was so very much like are own. I think the biggest stress is brought on by peopple's lack of agency in the modern world. It's hard to fit in because everything is so specialized and frankly, everyone has most of their needs taken care of on a basic level in first world countries. Even the poorer individuals eat as well as the nobility of the middle ages and a computer in your bedroom is capable of providing you more entertainment and knowledge than the greatest theaters and libraries of history combined.
#166 to #162
-
greyhoundfd (10/22/2015) [-] My point isn't that all people are desperately thirsty, but that the desire to pursue things which are conducive to reproduction is an innate thing. What I mean is that things like intelligence, strength, and other traits are needed for long term survival and to increase reproduction, and so the desire to achieve these things is, at least in part, genotypical rather than based on your upbringing or otherwise.
Rather than simply "You don't have to cook" destroying people's self-image, I'd say the entire idea that "There's nothing wrong with being weak/unintelligent/unattractive/introverted/etc." is what is destroying people's self-image. When the things that we take pride in lose value, and a lack thereof is no longer considered shameful, people aren't pushed as hard to pursue them. In addition, by often portraying the successful, attractive, intelligent, or strong with negative traits, we reinforce an idea that things conducive to reproduction are not only unnecessary, but that they make you a bad person and you should avoid them. Because we're genetically urged to pursue these things, but societally told that these things are bad, we end up remaining unfulfilled without an understanding of why.
The result of this is that people look for the cheaper avenues to joy rather than those that actually would make them happy. It's why people adopt useless fads to make them happier like mass-consumption or mass-simplification. It's why, despite the prevalence of education on the dangers of drug use, people still resort to using illegal or even legal drugs to be happy. It's why sex is now viewed as some kind of commodity which you have to acquire and control to be happy, rather than an expression of affection or love.
Rather than simply "You don't have to cook" destroying people's self-image, I'd say the entire idea that "There's nothing wrong with being weak/unintelligent/unattractive/introverted/etc." is what is destroying people's self-image. When the things that we take pride in lose value, and a lack thereof is no longer considered shameful, people aren't pushed as hard to pursue them. In addition, by often portraying the successful, attractive, intelligent, or strong with negative traits, we reinforce an idea that things conducive to reproduction are not only unnecessary, but that they make you a bad person and you should avoid them. Because we're genetically urged to pursue these things, but societally told that these things are bad, we end up remaining unfulfilled without an understanding of why.
The result of this is that people look for the cheaper avenues to joy rather than those that actually would make them happy. It's why people adopt useless fads to make them happier like mass-consumption or mass-simplification. It's why, despite the prevalence of education on the dangers of drug use, people still resort to using illegal or even legal drugs to be happy. It's why sex is now viewed as some kind of commodity which you have to acquire and control to be happy, rather than an expression of affection or love.
#170 to #166
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] Honestly, I use to believe that, but the reality is that modern science and technology have circumvented our need to be physically fit. In the not so distance future, for better or for worse, we will be able to genetically engineer our species and our medicine and other surgeries will be able to regenerate limbs and eliminate common imperfections of humanity.
But come on...people have -always- looked for cheap avenues to make themselves happy when they had the luxury to do so. Most of history, people have been far more concerned with survival than being able to pursue other sorts of pleasure. Besides, I think that's a rather bleak outlook at trying to hard to connect dots that simply don't exist. Anyway, I'm exhausted and heading to bed. Have a good night. ^^
But come on...people have -always- looked for cheap avenues to make themselves happy when they had the luxury to do so. Most of history, people have been far more concerned with survival than being able to pursue other sorts of pleasure. Besides, I think that's a rather bleak outlook at trying to hard to connect dots that simply don't exist. Anyway, I'm exhausted and heading to bed. Have a good night. ^^
#172 to #170
-
greyhoundfd (10/22/2015) [-] Good night.
Just to wrap this up, I want to say that I entirely agree that if and when we have the opportunity to do so, we should engineer such positive traits into our species.
I realize that people have always pursued drugs for pleasure, however, the fact that we have suddenly turned positive traits into negative ones is working to increase the usage of pleasure-inducing drugs, not to reduce it. When legitimate avenues to happiness are labeled as bad, evil, or oppressive, then it should not be surprising that people turn to those that provide easy, cheap, and sanctioned means of happiness.
Just to wrap this up, I want to say that I entirely agree that if and when we have the opportunity to do so, we should engineer such positive traits into our species.
I realize that people have always pursued drugs for pleasure, however, the fact that we have suddenly turned positive traits into negative ones is working to increase the usage of pleasure-inducing drugs, not to reduce it. When legitimate avenues to happiness are labeled as bad, evil, or oppressive, then it should not be surprising that people turn to those that provide easy, cheap, and sanctioned means of happiness.
#174 to #172
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] I personally think it's a terrible idea to start genetic engineering, but that's a completely other debate. And I don't mean from a moral standpoint, but from a classist/societal standpoint.
#62 to #47
-
erotictentacle (10/21/2015) [-] im pretty sure that almost everyone's identitie is dependant on what he offers to society
I should turn gay.
webm semi-related and semi-erect
#92 to #47
-
severepwner (10/21/2015) [-] Well it's not what defines them as a human, but it is part of what defines them as a gender.
Like ok you're a human, you eat, sleep, work, live. You have memories and experiences. You're a human.
Next detail. You're a female, ok what does it mean to be a female rather than a male? You have a vagina, you're capable of producing offspring, and you have qualities that make you adept at taking care of said offspring, such as being nurturing and loving.
See what I'm saying here? Being a certain gender doesn't make the entirety of your existence, however it doesn't really mean anything besides how you interact with the same gender, or opposite gender.
Like ok you're a human, you eat, sleep, work, live. You have memories and experiences. You're a human.
Next detail. You're a female, ok what does it mean to be a female rather than a male? You have a vagina, you're capable of producing offspring, and you have qualities that make you adept at taking care of said offspring, such as being nurturing and loving.
See what I'm saying here? Being a certain gender doesn't make the entirety of your existence, however it doesn't really mean anything besides how you interact with the same gender, or opposite gender.
#295 to #2
-
alcoholica ONLINE (10/22/2015) [-] Not saying Varg is a good guy, but I do believe his story that euronymous plotted to kill him is true
#355 to #295
-
kyouko (10/22/2015) [-] But he is a good guy. The only bad things he's done is trying to fit in an extreme community where Euronymous (who seemingly had a fetish of sorts for being extreme) pandered him to fit in.
Euronymous was probably an alright dude too, if we are to believe what the Mayhem folks say about him in the aftermath, but I would never persuade my band members to use a picture of my buddy's suicide as an album cover.
Euronymous was probably an alright dude too, if we are to believe what the Mayhem folks say about him in the aftermath, but I would never persuade my band members to use a picture of my buddy's suicide as an album cover.
#94 to #2
-
kijajouteh (10/21/2015) [-] Just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's reasonable.
#178 to #116
-
angelusprimus (10/22/2015) [-] Well I'll get downvoted down to hell, but still...
No, saying that women can be either housewives or worst possible people is not reasonable.
Its stupid. And for us who are not basement dwellers and actually know women who are both great at their jobs and good people/mothers/wives this isn't reasonable, its just words of someone who thinks woman has no business being anything but a cleaning baby maker.
Which is stupid.
No, saying that women can be either housewives or worst possible people is not reasonable.
Its stupid. And for us who are not basement dwellers and actually know women who are both great at their jobs and good people/mothers/wives this isn't reasonable, its just words of someone who thinks woman has no business being anything but a cleaning baby maker.
Which is stupid.
#200 to #178
-
thatonesouthernkid (10/22/2015) [-] i agree. I hate third wave-man hating feminism as much as the next guy but that varg guy just sounds sexist.
#181 to #178
-
xtrem (10/22/2015) [-] no one is saying " that women can be either housewives " the post is saying women ( like few i know) don't want to have family or spend time with their family, many who don't know how to cook and get bothered if asked to do house chores and when they get married they can only offer sex and love, but that tend to degrade slowly with time until couples lose interest and leave.
While a family loving women would have alot to offer even if she doesn't know how to cook, family is both parents providing support to maintain their genes for the next generation and helping bring successful generation to the world.
While a family loving women would have alot to offer even if she doesn't know how to cook, family is both parents providing support to maintain their genes for the next generation and helping bring successful generation to the world.
#214 to #210
-
xtrem (10/22/2015) [-] a family man helps with house work and cook ( omlet or something basic), but children have more compassion to their mother than their father which make her role with the family much more effective than the father, but can work vise versa.
on the other hand the male body can stand much more pressure to at work (physical or be it overtime at work) if he works less and come home to be lazy then he's just being useless because an extra effort will grant his family more income and make their lives better.
on the other hand the male body can stand much more pressure to at work (physical or be it overtime at work) if he works less and come home to be lazy then he's just being useless because an extra effort will grant his family more income and make their lives better.
#224 to #220
-
ninjaspartan (10/22/2015) [-] Because its gonna take a long ass time for men to assume a woman's position for cooking and cleaning, so it's probably even more lucky for a woman to find a man who can do that **** . That being said, most women with careers that take time away from home probably aren't married with kids.
If you correlate what men are attracted to and what a woman is good for together in the same bundle, you're basically putting on the feminazi blindfold.
If you correlate what men are attracted to and what a woman is good for together in the same bundle, you're basically putting on the feminazi blindfold.
#231 to #224
-
Ruspanic (10/22/2015) [-] "Most women with careers that take time away from home probably aren't married with kids."
I don't think this is true. Most adult women I've met that have full-time jobs are married and have husbands that also work. My mother is such a woman as well.
As for cooking and cleaning, that's something you work out with your spouse. If the woman you meet doesn't know how to cook, and neither do you, then if you're going to have kids at least one of you should learn. That's not an unusual situation.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what a woman is good for" in your last line. Do you just mean that not all of a given woman's positive qualities are going to be automatically attractive to men? I guess that's true, sure. But regardless, men are always primarily going to be attracted to good looks, and that's always been the case. All other qualities are secondary, for the most part, and are only noticed after the initial infatuation or even after they get to know each other.
I don't think this is true. Most adult women I've met that have full-time jobs are married and have husbands that also work. My mother is such a woman as well.
As for cooking and cleaning, that's something you work out with your spouse. If the woman you meet doesn't know how to cook, and neither do you, then if you're going to have kids at least one of you should learn. That's not an unusual situation.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "what a woman is good for" in your last line. Do you just mean that not all of a given woman's positive qualities are going to be automatically attractive to men? I guess that's true, sure. But regardless, men are always primarily going to be attracted to good looks, and that's always been the case. All other qualities are secondary, for the most part, and are only noticed after the initial infatuation or even after they get to know each other.
#293 to #231
-
ninjaspartan (10/22/2015) [-] Not true at all. Men have always been attracted to a woman who has the motherly qualities to take care of children, cook and clean, just like women have always been attracted to men of high status and that make good salary. Attraction is just a given. And of course there's plenty of exceptions abound, but that has always stood true.
The problem that the OP points out is that women now a day don't have those qualities very much anymore while men still mostly loyal to their own (homosexuals aside). That's why feminists scorn men and claim oppression and sexualization, because without those qualities that's all they have left to attract men with. That way they an easily pigeon-hole men's trait desires in a woman as a value gauge and demean their view of them as non-progressive so that they can literally warp and control what the standard of a woman's attraction to a man is to suit their personal agendas as whatever they want. It has nothing to do with what a woman's actual value is to society as a whole or to herself as an individual.
Because let's be honest, a man doesn't usuall stay at home to do dishes as a way to swoon the girls.
The problem that the OP points out is that women now a day don't have those qualities very much anymore while men still mostly loyal to their own (homosexuals aside). That's why feminists scorn men and claim oppression and sexualization, because without those qualities that's all they have left to attract men with. That way they an easily pigeon-hole men's trait desires in a woman as a value gauge and demean their view of them as non-progressive so that they can literally warp and control what the standard of a woman's attraction to a man is to suit their personal agendas as whatever they want. It has nothing to do with what a woman's actual value is to society as a whole or to herself as an individual.
Because let's be honest, a man doesn't usuall stay at home to do dishes as a way to swoon the girls.
#217 to #178
-
cheeseboyofdoom (10/22/2015) [-] The gentleman in question is saying that women on the whole may be more happy as caretakers and homemakers, which I don't think is all that unreasonable of an assumption.He also is a stay at home father and his wife commutes to work.
#213 to #178
-
ninjaspartan (10/22/2015) [-] Yeahno. That's literally twisting it into feminist propaganda. No one in they're sane mind thinks woman can "only be" housewives. What it's saying is that women no longer have anything to offer a man besides sex since none of them now a day want to be associated with any feminine quality aside from sexuality anymore. Men are attracted to cookers, cleaners, and child rearers. And also sex appeal. Nothing says a woman can't be what she wants, but what's being said is that those are the only qualities most men are attracted to. And apparently what men are attracted to seem to define a woman, because they all seem to find those qualities as stigmas to their gender solely based on the fact that they are what attract men and not their "individuality."
that is kind of a circle logic, you say you dont agree with anything evil, and that what you agree with its reasonable, because you are reasonable.
but you would need to be 100% pure reason, for evrything you agree with to be reasonable.
in other words, if you found someone else with the same logic as yours, and you didnt agree in a certain subject, then who is actually correct on being reasonable>?.
Who of the two is the more reasonable one.
but you would need to be 100% pure reason, for evrything you agree with to be reasonable.
in other words, if you found someone else with the same logic as yours, and you didnt agree in a certain subject, then who is actually correct on being reasonable>?.
Who of the two is the more reasonable one.
#205 to #168
-
destismad (10/22/2015) [-] >>#94, No it's not, reason is objective. Also, you're being hypocritical. In your comment #94 you said exactly " Just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's reasonable. ", but if reason was subjective then that would mean each individual would have their own "reason", which would mean any person agreeing with anything means that "thing" is reasonable, so him agreeing with it would mean it's reasonable, for him.
Reason and logic are objective, not subjective. The only problem which exists here is different human beings being capable of critical thinking only at different levels, as it is so extremely unlikely for a human being to be perfectly rational due to the insanely extreme array of various factors at play in the human brain and in society.
Reason and logic are objective, not subjective. The only problem which exists here is different human beings being capable of critical thinking only at different levels, as it is so extremely unlikely for a human being to be perfectly rational due to the insanely extreme array of various factors at play in the human brain and in society.
#337 to #205
-
kijajouteh (10/22/2015) [-] Reason is almost entirely unobjective. Emotion influences people's definition of reason. It's the whole reason why we have all this feminist ******** . Thheir definition of reason is based on emotion.
#412 to #337
-
destismad (10/24/2015) [-] After thinking on it for a little bit I think I get what you're saying now, but I don't have the time to really talk about it right now because I've gotta leave for the weekend, but I fully intend to continue this come Sunday or Monday, Tuesday at the latest. Good day.
I'd say it's pretty reasonable. His statement doesn't cover all women, of course, but it does hold a lot of gravity on the situation of feminism. Most, if not all, of the feminist girls I know have openly told me multiple times (without me even asking their opinion) that they are completely against having children and getting married. Sure this is just anecdotal evidence and their minds will hopefully change as they mature, but I think the guy still has a solid point. As a whole I think females are being geared less toward motherly tendencies. My entire time in highschool I only knew two girls that could cook and seemed somewhat excited for motherhood stuff. I know highschool is still young, but you have to consider that the longer they put off preparing for that stuff, the worse they'll be at it. Hell, I've already had thoughts about what kind of dad I'll be if I ever have children, and I only graduated last year. Sure you can say that shouldn't be a womans duty men can be mothers too blah blah blah yeah I agree but only if the woman can take on a paycheck to match. Women typically work fewer hours in lower wage jobs, and that means they have more time to spend with children, so they should either start being engineers en masse or continue being mothers. Getting a degree in gender studies, working in an office building, and protesting on weekends is just a waste of their own lives. I recognize their freedom to make that decision, but given it's a stupid ass decision I strongly disagree with their ******** .
girls in high school and guys, for that matter are incredibly ******* stupid and immature. Saying you won't ever have kids at 16 years old is like saying you will never ever have sex at 6 years old.
#338 to #222
-
kijajouteh (10/22/2015) [-] "I'll just make broad posts with anime pictures instead of actually proving an argument wrong! That'll make people like me!"
#296 to #99
-
alcoholica ONLINE (10/22/2015) [-] He may be nazi, but his music is definitely not nsbm, he said that himself multiple times on interviews and his blogs that he does not use Burzum to promote his political views
Stabbed his old hommie 23 times "in self defense" because he "heard a rumor he had planned to kill him". He also burned some churches. And the police found 150 kg of explosives and 3,000 rounds of ammunition in his home.
Gotta love Norway. They gave him the maximum sentence: 21 years!
In America he would have got something like 390 life sentences, with an additional 10,000 years. lol 'Merica.
His best albums were recorded in prison, IMHO.
#371 to #339
-
gabikak (10/22/2015) [-] I see your point, but I can't agree with it. The synth works sounded really terrible on his prison albums, also those were just keyboard midi versions of his old or newer Black Metal songs.
e.g. Belus' Død = Dauði Baldrs
Illa tiðandi = Gebrechlichkeit
Also, he did not have explosives, nor ammo, that's ******** .
Euronymous was never his real friend, he was a boastful aggressive psycho dick, so Varg never really liked him for it even tho Burzum was signed to Euronymous' label.
That was the reason Varg went there. Euronymous was acting suddenly really suspicious at the time, acted like they were friends for long. Then one day he told Varg to come to Oslo to sign a contract.
Varg was a pretty paranoid guy so when he seen Euronymous trying to attack, he grabbed a knife and "defended himself". He ****** up again, because Euronymous wanted to flee after receiving stabs in the knife fight. Varg thought he was about to get his weapons (which later turned out that they didn't exist) so he chased the poor dude and finished him.
e.g. Belus' Død = Dauði Baldrs
Illa tiðandi = Gebrechlichkeit
Also, he did not have explosives, nor ammo, that's ******** .
Euronymous was never his real friend, he was a boastful aggressive psycho dick, so Varg never really liked him for it even tho Burzum was signed to Euronymous' label.
That was the reason Varg went there. Euronymous was acting suddenly really suspicious at the time, acted like they were friends for long. Then one day he told Varg to come to Oslo to sign a contract.
Varg was a pretty paranoid guy so when he seen Euronymous trying to attack, he grabbed a knife and "defended himself". He ****** up again, because Euronymous wanted to flee after receiving stabs in the knife fight. Varg thought he was about to get his weapons (which later turned out that they didn't exist) so he chased the poor dude and finished him.
He literally says "modern women are only good for sex" and then goes on to say he expects them to be some kind of 1950's housewife.
If you lonely ******* would get out more and talk to people you'd know this is complete rubbish.
#151 to #79
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] You say that, but the reality is that having a career while also being pregnant with children is not easy to do and depending on your job, can entirely disrupt your ability to progress. Moreover, even after the challenges of pregnancy, there is still the issue of taking care of a child until they are old enough for daycare. Who is going to do that? I bet you also expect the woman to while you are the breadwinner.
It's easy to say that, but when you actually consider the demands of parenthood, you understand that it's hard to keep both.
It's easy to say that, but when you actually consider the demands of parenthood, you understand that it's hard to keep both.
#111 to #78
-
penalcupcake (10/22/2015) [-] Well then if he really isn't then present your evidence and your point as to why; instead of insulting everyone for their beliefs and propping yourself up on your ego-supported pedestal. But by all means, keep talking about how you are wayyyyyyy more enlightened than the rest of us "brainwashed far-right cretins," I'm rather curious about hearing what you have to say.
Hardly. Especially with the kind of *********** ******** you humans get up to.
#152 to #72
-
zerocalibre (10/22/2015) [-] And what's wrong with that? Why are women obligated to build a family? Most men aren't running around offering to be stay at home fathers and completely give up their careers. Besides, most people aren't nearly as crazy in the real world as you think they are.
I've kinda recommended my two oldest siblings to move to my father as a result. But of course the moment they even touch the subject with her, she buys them something or does something to persuade them to stay.
If I'm ever getting a woman, id far prefer it if she was a stay-home mother, and I think most men have this desire to provide for their families. I do at the very least.
But ye, I'm just giving my 56,3 cents to this.
A relationship can be based on appreciation of more than appearance or being a caring house wife. Someone can have sexual compatibility, they can have a bond of love, there can be trust, there can be respect and admiration, there can be humour and fun.
There are a lot of attractive qualities beyond being a caregiver and sex. But there is some truth to women not displaying commitment to caring, focusing on sex appeal, and not respecting that men are different human beings with agency and feelings of our own. So thumbs up for your thought inspiring content.
#146 to #132
-
asotil (10/22/2015) [-] Not what I meant but ok I deserve that one
What I meant was Ferguson was rioting over Dindu **** , this case a dindu getting dun'd. It's a **** reason, but something still happened. Were they in the right? **** no. They got fed ******** about why someone got killed and burned **** down over that. A thing still happened
This is just "I can't walk through a children's playground naked dripping my period blood on them because EVUL MEN MUH PATRIARCHY"
There is no reason for them to be there. they just want attention since absolutely nothing can be done. They're there to blog and be looked at like women at concerts getting in front of every camera and pointing to the thing happening like they are doing something
Ferguson=Thing
This=No Thing
What I meant was Ferguson was rioting over Dindu **** , this case a dindu getting dun'd. It's a **** reason, but something still happened. Were they in the right? **** no. They got fed ******** about why someone got killed and burned **** down over that. A thing still happened
This is just "I can't walk through a children's playground naked dripping my period blood on them because EVUL MEN MUH PATRIARCHY"
There is no reason for them to be there. they just want attention since absolutely nothing can be done. They're there to blog and be looked at like women at concerts getting in front of every camera and pointing to the thing happening like they are doing something
Ferguson=Thing
This=No Thing
#366 to #146
-
friedpotato (10/22/2015) [-] They fight for the right to have an abortion. Something you should be free to have in any civilised country.
#384 to #379
-
friedpotato (10/22/2015) [-] Oh yes, let the parentless children move from a foster home to another where they might get abused and will have a terrible childhood. Great idea, really.
#140 to #132
-
jrockjesse (10/22/2015) [-] I think what you meant to say was. Cop murdered an innocent man.
#158 to #140
-
dankmemepepe (10/22/2015) [-] I think what you meant was, a man tried to take a cops gun and was shot because the officer would have died otherwise.
#388 to #198
-
dankmemepepe (10/22/2015) [-] I'm not racist. I have a video showing how Micheal Brown treated an old man on his street. Does this look innocent?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGIHCnXKGw
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHGIHCnXKGw
#396 to #388
-
jrockjesse (10/22/2015) [-] except thats not mike brown.
www.snopes.com/politics/crime/shawnspall.asp
www.snopes.com/politics/crime/shawnspall.asp
#398 to #396
-
dankmemepepe (10/23/2015) [-] I have never heard of this site, which makes me reluctant to trust it. However, even if it is correct, I still stand by the fact that Micheal Brown was trying to take the officer's gun.
#399 to #398
-
jrockjesse (10/23/2015) [-] You have never heard of snopes.com ? its like the internets biggest site for debunking internet rumors and myths. also there is 0 proof he tried to take the cops gun.
You have a really poor understanding of the law
#365 to #309
-
jrockjesse (10/22/2015) [-] 1. so? drugs although illegal are not means to be killed and I would actually argue still makes him inno depending on the drugs he used
2. its actually been questioned if he had actually robbed the place they claimed he had, considering he was supposed to have robbed a convenient store before he died, and there is no way he could have got from point A being the store he ''robbed'' and point B the place he was shot at.
3. shot by a cop while he was minding his own biz
2. its actually been questioned if he had actually robbed the place they claimed he had, considering he was supposed to have robbed a convenient store before he died, and there is no way he could have got from point A being the store he ''robbed'' and point B the place he was shot at.
3. shot by a cop while he was minding his own biz
#268 to #109
-
somuchfreedom (10/22/2015) [-] No, the cop ws proven justified in what he did, and the black community got together, decided they weren't having that, and ****** up their whole town, spreading lies across the nation
#66
-
reican (10/21/2015) [-] right there, i'd respect the right to protect a property with guns.
those cun't can't be allowed to breed
those cun't can't be allowed to breed
>implying any sane man will even talk to them.
#121
-
beastkenten 
ONLINE (10/22/2015) [-] why does it seem like the people who want to be treated equally and without discrimination are the ones who are the most violent
Blacks 'protesting' racism ends in riots and injury.
Feminists 'protesting' equality ends in things like this.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, these groups would realize breaking things, hurting people and causing people in general a bunch of problems is not the way to get the thing you want?
Blacks 'protesting' racism ends in riots and injury.
Feminists 'protesting' equality ends in things like this.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, these groups would realize breaking things, hurting people and causing people in general a bunch of problems is not the way to get the thing you want?
#127 to #121
-
guardianatreyu (10/22/2015) [-] They don't want equality. They want to be able to act like animals and do whatever the **** they want without consequence. They just say they want equality to mask their true motives.
Dog poop is one thing, but if these people threw their own poop, that makes them no better than a bunch of monkeys.
#211 to #193
-
feelythefeel (10/22/2015) [-] They threw diapers, so I assume it's all at least human.
