Null is out of touch with women

[m1ddl3m4rch]

She's right, though. Give her a lidl credit.

The term marriage can be expanded to include homosexual monogamous couples. It already has, to widespread societal acceptance.

 

[Lurker]

The term marriage can be expanded to include homosexual monogamous couples. It already has, to widespread societal acceptance.

sounds like you're defending gay marriage, then?

is it because you're a fag? huh, sure makes you think.

 

[Cheeseknife]

The term marriage can be expanded to include homosexual monogamous couples. It already has, to widespread societal acceptance.

Nope, it is a uniquely Christian term that was hijacked by progressives and applied to a union based on carnal pleasure.

Douglas Wilson argues this best. Once you attribute "marriage" to any and all unions, then marriage essentially doesn't mean anything.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Nope, it is a uniquely Christian term that was stolen by progressives and applied to a union based on carnal pleasure.

A Christian term stolen by progressive Christians for carnal pleasure? You're thinking of divorce.

Marriage is a civil term for a legal union. If it was a sacrament you shouldn't have gotten the secular government involved in it.

 

[Cheeseknife]

A Christian term stolen by progressive Christians for carnal pleasure? You're thinking of divorce.

Marriage is a civil term for a legal union. If it was a sacrament you shouldn't have gotten the secular government involved in it.

No, marriage was and still is a religious term. The secular term is "civil union." There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Any church or institution that tells you otherwise blasphemes.

Bar none, this is perhaps THE central issue dividing Christian churches today.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

No, marriage was and still is a religious term. The secular term is "civil union." There is no such thing as "gay marriage." Any church or institution that tells you otherwise blaspheme.

Bar none, this is perhaps THE central issue dividing Christian churches today.

No, the state issues marriage licenses and certificates. It has marriage printed right on the paper, nothing sacred about it, just a form. You lost that argument as soon as secular justices of the peace could be the priests to administer your sacrament.

Marriage is a word derived from matrimony, which has mother right there in it, but that doesn't restrict the word forever. That would be the etymological fallacy. A telescoping cane doesn't help you see at a distance, no matter how much you shout"but that's what telescope means!!!!"

 

[Mr Bunny]

My favorite part is always how much of a hive mind these retards think they are, insult one you apparently insult everyone.

It's great, m1ddl3m4rch even says rape is a crime twice, but because he calls you a name ON THE INTERNET! They'll single to the "group" to vote for a party that wants to and even did in some parts of the nation defund the police and no longer persecutes criminals which by consequence makes everything, from petty thief to rape legal. In a way, by consequence of voting habits reducing themselves to nothing but holes who have no rights.

What an own goal.

 

[JambledUpWords]

It already has, to widespread societal acceptance.

There’s a difference between acceptance and tolerance. I can tolerate gay guys having a civil marriage, but I don’t accept them impeding on religion and demanding religion change just to suit the whims of the time period.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

There’s a difference between acceptance and tolerance. I can tolerate gay guys having a civil marriage, but I don’t accept them impeding on religion and demanding religion change just to suit the whims of the time period.

I agree about trampling religions being wrong. But I can make the case for homosexual marriage from the Torah, and if its truly in line with the Torah then no one can prevail against it, even if they might succeed for a time.

And as for trampling, Christians wouldn't let gays stay and wouldn't us leave either. Not even to petition a secular government for protections like spousal inheritance.

 

[Shidoen]

Why are we talking about gays in a thread about women which is also in turn about Null’s opinion in women? Save the gay stuff when we talk about Null’s Neko Shota nonsense.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

If men can decide that, then they can decide women are to be subservient too.
To further explain, the view of The Woman as a fragile, to be protected, precious entity, is fine by me, but at the same time, you WILL behave like a lady, will listen to your father, will marry who the family decides you will marry, and spend your life in literary pursuits of beauty and children rearing.

Fine, provided it has a few more terms; I'm inspired by your idea to start sketching out a sort of Swiftian-style proposal, along these lines:

Spoiler: Very modest

in the above scenario any man a woman is required to marry must show demonstrable proof that he earns at least double* her earning potential, calculated based on what a man of her IQ would earn, mapped by IQ percentile to income range (e.g., if her IQ is is top 5%, the husband must earn at least 2x the 5th percentile of earnings. Top 5% earnings is around $187,506, so he must show income (earned or equivalent) of $375,012, minimum. 1% = $815,000+, etc. Of course, this would also need to increase each year, and not just by COL. This distribution ensures some nexus between capability and power going forward - provided high-capacity men select high-capacity women, which we all know may require some additional incentivization, egos and insecurities being what they are. So in our engineered society, men will not be permitted more than a 3-5 IQ point excess over a mate's IQ. Of course, they can aim higher (that is a positive quality and encourages industry and ambition), but still probably should have to be within 7 or 10 IQ points under a woman.

Why the difference? Because in this society a man is just needed for his earning power. But a woman will need to entertain and anticipate her mate's needs, to charm and beguile him, to be one step ahead and make it look like fairy magic - she can do that smarter than her mate, but not much dumber. Keeping both gaps fairly narrow lowers the risk of dilution and downward evolution.

How does this play for most? To be eligible for the average-IQ girl (97.43 in the US; 100 is the mean), her selected intended must earn about $140k (average income is around $69k). So get working, midwits! Good news is that almost 70% of people are 85-115, so you have a large pool with not much different income requirements;

*probably more like 2.5-3x, as compensation for her loss of human rights, and to attempt to quantify the additional risk created by having only a single earner, but I'm not redoing the math.

Also, if he ever develops an addiction, cheats, lays a hand or is otherwise cruel, unappreciative, or indifferent (preliminary list), he's voided the arrangement and forfeits everything - because if you can't take proper care of your belongings, then they get taken away from you, and like any naughty child you get a punishment as well. Naughty step for you.

What do you think? It's rough, but if we get some quants cranking on it, it could get smoothed pretty easily.

(And bc this is the dome, I'll refer any sassy pants back to the link at top )

Not a feminist. Complimentarian where I believe men and women are both different, and offer different things. It doesn’t place men above women either, or vice versa, but it doesn’t ignore the biological

This is a version of difference feminism.

OK so if a sex is superior in physical prowess but equal in intellectual prowess (allegedly), how does that compute that the sex that is inferior in physical power should be considered equal?

Men as a group have color blindness issues, struggle with both fashion and hygiene, and sometimes think with their dicks. Equalized.

That's what I've always heard is there's huge pain in childbirth, but incredible joy that occurs after. That's something I will NEVER experience as a man and it baffles me women, in droves, want to deny themselves of it.

Hardcore runners experience endorphin highs even when in agonizing pain. And they willingly go out and do it again. Many people are not willing to experience the pain necessary to be able to run ultramarathons.

Ooooh an American!
First things first - let me thank you for the grandiose, progressive concepts you've given us savages from the 3rd world here!
Would you care explaining to us exactly why women should be given "rights" by default?
What's the reasoning for these liberties, my lady? How were they argued into existence?

Human rights are inherent to humans. Beyond those (and not interested in a debate over what constitutes the definitive list of human rights, bc it will just devolve into chaos*), your premise - that men "own" the rights and they are theirs to give or take away - is faulty.

*...oop, I see we went there already, ok. If human rights are "denied," that implies they existed to begin with. The language of both the 15th and the 19th aligns with this view. Rights weren't "given," regardless of how it is commonly phrased; denial or abridging of (inherently) pre-existing rights was prohibited. Both amendments restrict government from removing that which is already, inherently possessed. They say that any laws that purported to deny these rights are invalid. They are not a grant to people of what they don't naturally have, but a limit on the government's ability to deny what inherently exists. The fact of a government's (any government's) disregard or refusal to acknowledge inherent rights is an artifical act. Because sometimes things have to be spelled out to dummies.

It's beyond obvious that humans do not have any unalienable rights whatsoever, and they can be killed, in massive numbers, without many shedding a single tear.

That rights are denied or abused doesn't mean they didn't exist.

...

But more importantly. PSA: there is no such fucking thing as "the Royal You"! "The royal (or Royal) we," yes. But it's "the general you." You can find me in the grammar bitching thread if you have any questions.

 

[AgendaPoster]

His problem is literally that he doesn't seem to have any capacity for nuance. When I listen to his streams, I am like lol and then my eyes roll out of my head and lol again.

Nobody donates to him for nuance, the masses want drama and hot takes. It's what their IQ is suited for.
Jersh is smart and knows that, and represses the smarts (which sometimes go to the surface) and encourages the slop consumption. It works, got him funded to fight some really nasty people.
Also he probably hates most of us, since he only recognizes the ancient oldfags, rest of us are just highly sus and as usual, should kill ourselves.

Hardcore runners experience endorphin highs even when in agonizing pain. And they willingly go out and do it again. Many people are not willing to experience the pain necessary to be able to run ultramarathons.

HELL YEAH
PS: you can get these highs even without a UM (I never ran one, but I did quite a few marathons). Mostly during very high intensity speed training, intervals and the sort, or longer runs at faster tempo paces. You can even experience it with easy slow runs, especially if it's beautiful outside, you catch a sunset, snow, a nice spring rain with rainbows etc.
Music will increase the likelihood of this rush too. Can easily put you in a rhythmic trance.

That rights are denied or abused doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Full disagreement with this.
You're far too smart to cling to these lies.
We simply do not have ANY rights at all, none of us. What we have are some limited social contracts with power structures, which can disappear in any crisis.
Again, you Westerners live in sheltered bubbles. Stop this lunacy and fight against reality, I beg you.
There is no supernatural entity to grant rights. There is just power and its manifestations, and flawed humans. "Rights" is simply a manifestation of power, where weaker humans are granted conditional privileges by a rich elite and their structures - finance, state, nation.

 

[Cheeseknife]

No, the state issues marriage licenses and certificates. It has marriage printed right on the paper, nothing sacred about it, just a form. You lost that argument as soon as secular justices of the peace could be the priests to administer your sacrament.

Yes, and the Church is having to deal with the consequences of which are the secularization of society and abandonment of a Christianity moral fundament.

In short, the world knew not God and everyone did what was right in his eyes.

Marriage is a word derived from matrimony, which has mother right there in it, but that doesn't restrict the word forever. That would be the etymological fallacy. A telescoping cane doesn't help you see at a distance, no matter how much you shout"but that's what telescope means!!!!"

There's a lot of words we use today that don't retain their originally intended meaning or function thanks to postmodern education demanding we question everything including words themselves.

I agree about trampling religions being wrong. But I can make the case for homosexual marriage from the Torah, and if its truly in line with the Torah then no one can prevail against it, even if they might succeed for a time.

And as for trampling, Christians wouldn't let gays stay and wouldn't us leave either. Not even to petition a secular government for protections like spousal inheritance.

Genesis 2:24
Matthew 5:31-32
Ephesians 5:21-33

Plenty more, but those are some of the main ones.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Yes, and the Church is having to deal with the consequences of which are the secularization of society and abandonment of a Christianity moral fundament.

In short, the world knew not God and everyone did what was right in his eyes.

If I'm arguing from Torah, I know G-d and I'm making the case from his word. Cute that you can quote Judges.

There's a lot of words we use today that don't retain their originally intended meaning or function thanks to postmodern education demanding we question everything including words themselves.

Words legitimately changing over time isn't postmodernism. You're falling for the etymological fallacy. You also seem to think that words only belong to the church. It's not the king's English. Its not the church's either.

Genesis 2:24
Matthew 5:31-32
Ephesians 5:21-33

Plenty more, but those are some of the main ones.

That's cute. I know the OT and NT quite well. Your Sunday school understanding is sufficient only for the milk of scripture. Let me know when you can stomach some steak.

 

[Cheeseknife]

If I'm arguing from Torah, I know G-d and I'm making the case from his word. Cute that you can quote Judges.

Doesn't work that way. Making the case intellectually does not make you an authority.

Words legitimately changing over time isn't postmodernism.

But what the words mean will forever remain changeless. This is how you discern truth from lies.

That's cute. I know the OT and NT quite well. Your Sunday school understanding is sufficient only for the milk of scripture. Let me know when you can stomach some steak.

Then you know you're in sin and denial. That or you think you can outsmart God. I'm going with the latter given your complete lack of humility with the steak and milk analogy.

Speaking of Sunday school, I noticed you didn't capitalize the "H." Just something I noticed.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

Doesn't work that way. Making the case intellectually does not make you an authority.

Conservative positions are not correct because they're restrictive. Sometimes the permissive view wins out.

But what the words mean will forever remain changeless. This is how you discern truth from lies.

The dictionary is a log of changing words. Words do change over time. Let means allow but it used to mean prohibit. Makes a difference in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, Sunday schooler.

Then you know you're in sin and denial. That or you think you can outsmart God. I'm going with the latter given your complete lack of humility with the steak and milk analogy.

A fool answers before he has even listened. Proverbs 18:13. You haven't heard my case so you can't know. G-d calls you a fool for not listening.

Speaking of Sunday school, I noticed you didn't capitalize the "H." Just something I noticed.

And you don't put a dash in G-d or L-rd. I guess that means you must hate him, right

 

[Cheeseknife]

Conservative positions are not correct because they're restrictive. Sometimes the permissive view wins out.

As per what? Tik Tok sloganeering?

Words do change over time.

Meaning never changes.

You haven't heard my case

There's no excuse for sexual immortality.

And you don't put a dash in G-d or L-rd. I guess that means you must hate him, right

I know of no scripture that would ever adhere to such nonsense.

 

[m1ddl3m4rch]

I know of no scripture that would ever adhere to such nonsense.

I know you don't. I don't have that failing.

 

[ITK]

The term marriage can be expanded to include homosexual monogamous couples. It already has, to widespread societal acceptance.

"The term woman can be expanded to include men who identify as women. It already has, to widespread societal acceptance." Concepts have meaning. Words can change, but they must still refer to some sensible concept, otherwise they are just empty labels that do not actually transfer any tangible message. Marriage refers to the fundamental human institution of man and woman coupling together for the purpose of creating family, just like woman refers to the sex that is ordered towards gestation. Homosexuals cannot marry because reproduction is categorically impossible for you. The fact that you rejected any proposal to allow you to enter into civil unions with all the same legal priviledges as marriage shows that the true motive of gay marriage was and always is subversion of the most basic institution in society, nothing else.

 

[Cheeseknife]

I know you don't. I don't have that failing.

Probably because you're a faggot and I'm not. A "failing" I will gladly take as as my own success.