MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »You introduced the argument of high position women needing to breed so you produce the numbers to back up your assertion.
I only suggested that successful people seemed like a better choice for the gene pool. You're the one that claimed a weak correlation. That's a statistical argument, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.So a mother can ? some kids out her ? but asking her to personally see to the development of her children is doing too much? Whose responsibility is it then? The state? Because they do such a good job now?
If she isn't fit to teach her own children then she probably shouldn't have them. Honestly we demand more responsibility from dog owners.
That's a stupid argument. If that's the case, why do we even have schools. Why don't parents just teach their kids everything at home? As a parent, you do have a part to play in your child's educational development no matter where you send them. Please explain to me how a parent earning the money to send their child to an early learning center is less responsible than trying to teach themselves.The benefits of maternity leave are attributes of a dying era, the industrial age. We are no longer in it. Productivity is not causality of human labor any longer
In addition to the overpopulation of the human species, a woman having a child is no longer a benefit to society. In fact it is more probable that her spawn will be a further drain on the system. Her decision to breed is personal and self serving and it should not come at the cost of company productivity.
This is a stupider argument. If everyone thought this way, the species would die out in a generation. Overpopulation is one thing, but to suggest that having children in general is not a benefit to society is...I don't even know man. You're getting pretty far gone with this ? .
Perhaps you are too sentimental and not pragmatic enough for a conversation at this level. So we'll discontinue it to cease your mental distress.
lol Ok guy. -
Lol you are unable to look at humanity objectively. So some conversations are not fit for your emotional state especially when you conflate emotional reasoning for logic.
-
Lol you are unable to look at humanity objectively. So some conversations are not fit for your emotional state especially when you conflate emotional reasoning for logic.
What emotions am I conflating with anything? This is the philosophy that you subscribe to. You're far more emotionally invested in this discussion than I am, which is why you're resorting to this cheap deflection rather than just addressing my point.
There is nothing emotional about me pointing out that society already provides schooling and thus it is not expected for parents to foot that responsibility fully.
There is nothing emotional about me pointing out that a philosophy that devalues procreation goes against nature itself. There is nothing logical about that.
Both of those statements are completely objective. Your attempt at dodging the points is pretty pathetic, but if that's how to you choose to tap out, I'm cool with it. -
I've already pointed out that procreation is neither a negative nor positive trait, it is utilitarian and should be treated as such especially as a society progresses.
7 billion people means that it is not a necessity for women to breed. There needs to be depopulation because our resources are limited.
Mgtow is a philosophy that seeks to override biological imperatives so of course it is against nature but that doesn't make it illogical. Nature is slow to react taking hundreds of thousands of years to respond to immediate issues.
Society provides indoctrination, conditioning children to the needs of the market. Once again the bureaucratic nature of state education causes it to be slow to react unable to evolve or shift paradigms to stay ahead of the market. It's simply too big for that. However a forward thinking parental figure can forecast and adjust the educational needs of their children accordingly.
Your exact emotion is irrelevant but it is displayed in your flawed intractable thinking. Your emotional attachment to your situation blinds you to obvious failings. Hubris. -
I've already pointed out that procreation is neither a negative nor positive trait, it is utilitarian and should be treated as such especially as a society progresses.
What about my posts makes you think that I disagree with this? I'm not sitting here describing procreation as rainbows and sunkisses. I'm saying its necessary for the species, and to take actions to discourage it wholesale would be foolish.7 billion people means that it is not a necessity for women to breed. There needs to be depopulation because our resources are limited.
lol Dude population doesn't work like that. 7 billion people are living now, but to perpetuate the species, there needs to be a constant influx of new people. Suggesting that lowering the birth rate so that the population shrinks is one thing. Saying that we should or could stop having children altogether is silly. And why do you keep emphasizing women in this matter as if they are the only ones who play a part in procreation?Mgtow is a philosophy that seeks to override biological imperatives so of course it is against nature but that doesn't make it illogical. Nature is slow to react taking hundreds of thousands of years to respond to immediate issues.
Fair enough. In some ways feminism seeks to do the same thing. Before you have a fit, I'm not saying MGTOW and feminism are the same thing, but it does seem that ya'll have similar but opposite objectives. Anyway, it's true that we can't wait for biology or evolution to address societal problems. I'd also submit that societal problem probably aren't best addressed by attacking such fundamental biological truths.Society provides indoctrination, conditioning children to the needs of the market. Once again the bureaucratic nature of state education causes it to be slow to react unable to evolve or shift paradigms to stay ahead of the market. It's simply too big for that. However a forward thinking parental figure can forecast and adjust the educational needs of their children accordingly.
State education can be ? . That's true. However, that doesn't mean that the average parent is capable of teaching their child everything that child needs to know. Have you ever tried to teach a 4 year old how to read? It's not easy. That's why people get years of training to do it. And even with your child going to school, that doesn't mean you're not forecasting and adjusting educational needs. You can do that by supplementing what your child does at school and taking an interest in your child's schooling. This ? isn't rocket science. People have been doing it successfully for hundreds of years.Your exact emotion is irrelevant but it is displayed in your flawed intractable thinking. Your emotional attachment to your situation blinds you to obvious failings. Hubris.
My thinking is no more intractable than yours. You're not budging on your side just like I'm not budging on mine. The difference is, I'm addressing your points and you're resorting to pathetic ad Hominem tactics. The hubris is in you thinking that I'm being emotional or prideful because I'm not just bowing down and accepting this weak ? you're pushing. I might not agree with @LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY, but I can honestly admit that at least he argues the points and don't pull the ? you are doing now. -
You're nor addressing my points. You're giving weak counter points.
Your example of school for instance. You lack knowledge about what the public education system is for so you make assumptions about what it can and cannot do. Then to fill in any knowledge gaps or plot holes you use the solution that i stated from the beginning which is direct parental involvement of their child's education.
And the rest. ? it I'm no longer going in these circles. It's fruitless polemics. But you're wrong regardless. -
lol Whatever you say bruh.
-
Just realized something.
I watch Bloomberg News a lot, and.........lately.......whenever the jobs report comes out or they talk about employment in general..........they always refer to not enough young men entering the job market because they'd rather play video games.
Never understood where they were getting this from, until I read some of the youtube comments on one of the videos posted here.
A MGTOW dude was saying that he does the bare minimum to support himself so that he can play XBox all day.
Then it hit me.......
Bloomberg News is actually talking about the MGTOW phenomenon and they don't even realize it.
? is happening right under their noses and they don't even know what's going on.
I've noticed a lot of people on here try to downplay it and make it seem like it's just a bunch of bitter dudes and lames........but this ? is actually affecting the economy.
In particular the labor statistics and employment participation rate.
Combine this with all the talk about how Section 8 and snap are about to take a huge hit, and some people are gonna be in for a rude awakening.
IDK, maybe I'm making more of this than it really is.....but something is definitely brewing. -
-
-
https://youtu.be/N6Vso14TuwI
https://youtu.be/Z2nOsdj8dmc