for real breh? this is disappointing. Are you a man? Do you think women in your family should just be vessels who absorb and cater to male needs?
US birth rate lowest in history. Falls below replacement.
- Thread starter VerbalIntercourse
- Start date
for real breh? this is disappointing. Are you a man? Do you think women in your family should just be vessels who absorb and cater to male needs?Why do you get to decide what a woman's life should be about?
Yuzo Lightheart
Rookie
no i think they should be caregivers of our children. this requires the concept of selfless love.
so a nanny would do fine instead?
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
This is the society you poor demons wanted isnt it. Some ghetto eugenics based filth where only the people you feel should procreate are doing so. Poor people shouldnt procreate. You shouldnt procreate until you make 6 figure income. fakkits should purchase children because we have so many without parents. Nothing regarding where your mind is spiritually and where your morals lie just your income. Sad that you poor demonic nitwits dont see the relationship between the lack of morals and your ultimate flattening. Turn from God, and its like you turn away from existing.
Its so demonic, friends.
Its so demonic, friends.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
So basically you're saying women should be servants to men and children by birthright and should have no option to choose a different life. Brood mares basically. We already fought this out several decades ago. Your side lost...thankfulky.
Yuzo Lightheart
Rookie
no theres something sacred about becoming a mother and a father. it requires generativity as defined by erik erikson, it requires sacrifice, it requires love, it requires monogamy. not everyone can preform these things.
there are things that we must embrace as we age in this world as we shed away our selfish youths, as erik erikson would say. women are not slaves, but to give away your life to the greater good of others is the greatest gift a human being can be given. to never experience this kind of self less love, as erikson would say, would be the greatest tragedy.
if you disagree with that then fine.
Erik Erikson and Yuzo Lightheart agree that the other group of people (women) should be selflessly loving them (men) and 'their' children. How convenient.
Why is a single man not lost to empty carnal pleasure with no sacrifice?
Yuzo Lightheart
Rookie
a single man is lost if hes like that. any person is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Yeah, tell 50% of people their lives should be based upon selfless sacrifice while you enjoy the luxury of selfish pursuit of personal pleasure.
Good thing they get to say fukk you in response.
You just said a single man is suited to a solitary life but a single woman is a tragedy. You followed this up by saying women's lives should be about love and sacrifice! Now you're trying to connect it back to 'mother and father' , 'single man is lost' etc but you made clear distinctions between the sexes. Which is it?
You don't think there's a problem in you as a man determining what woman should be like? What if she dies a solitary virgin and not given to "carnality"? It's very confused logic and you should examine its lack of internal sensibleness
Yuzo Lightheart
Rookie
i think men are more naturally suited to being solitary, theyre natural hobbyists etc. women depend more greatly on relationship and intimacy. thats why i feared what their role would be in a family less society. in my opinion, they would be the biggest losers of all in event of that.
it would be a bad society for everyone, men would lose too, to clarify, but not with the same severity and pain
it would be a bad society for everyone, men would lose too, to clarify, but not with the same severity and pain
OG Talk
Archived
Yeah, less kids are being born because the media is turning people gay. That's what's happening.
Obviously the reason for less babies being born is primarily economic. Women are in the workplace now because you can't support a family on one income anymore and it's not a good to have kids at age 19 or 20.. They're going to college and into the workforce and having kids when they can afford them, which is usually in their early 30's. Men too.
The people having kids at a young age are disproportionately of low income. So the last thing we need is "hoodrats" having more babies, increasing the strain on the social safety net.
Yep.. Poor people stop procreating please!!!
Meanwhile..
The working class is too busy trying to stay ahead to procreate...
Educated professional women are on the morning after pill...
The "alternatives" are too busy shooting loads into a dookie hole (we know how that works out)
The results?
You heathens happy now?
there are hundreds of millions of people in the united states and billions more in the planet. there is no extinction afoot. the issue is people making their own choices about when to procreate and raising fewer children they can care for better. 'replacement' assumes that there's something inherently expected about the current stats
the issue is people making their own choices about when to procreate and raising fewer children they can care for better. 'replacement' assumes that there's something inherently expected about the current stats
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Men need women and women need men. I spoke to a player recently whos been playing the field for the last 5 years and he said he needs to find a good girl. Im like why. Friend told me straight up like the truth.
"when i go home im lonely"