Official Kiwifarms Woman-Hate Thread - DO NOT post about OTHER USERS or OTHER THREADS from THIS WEBSITE.

View attachment 5939303
When to have children is not a problem when you neck yourself first.
putin_topless_protestor.png

Putin's face: mfw

When it comes to having kids: The question the woman needs to ask is "Can I bear them?" The question the man needs to ask is "Can I raise them?" The major potential problem with an older man siring children isn't really biology, it's whether he's gonna be the sort of guy who can be a father to them.
 
Because we made it up. There were basically no autistic children in the 90s. You were mentally retarded, or oligophrenic, or a similar diagnosis. To make parents feel better about their lower and lower quality offspring grown without grass touching, frail, unable to hit a ball or smash a pussy, we medics made up some more categories and started to give these idiots stims.
I've noticed that in pretty much every playgroup with more than about 15 kids, there will always be at least one kid wearing ear defenders.

When the fuck did this happen? As you say, that didn't even exist in the 90s. And is it even helpful to have your kid go around not being able to hear anything?
 
But "kids are expensive" is the greatest lie ever told. Kids are cheap.
Birth rates always crash first among the upper/middle class. Taking the kids to the ER in the middle of the night because their stomach hurts and they're vomiting, now that's something not even Master Card can buy.

They may not even be you kids - as long as you can drive, you might end up doing that anyway.
View attachment 5939364
Putin's face: mfw

When it comes to having kids: The question the woman needs to ask is "Can I bear them?" The question the man needs to ask is "Can I raise them?" The major potential problem with an older man siring children isn't really biology, it's whether he's gonna be the sort of guy who can be a father to them.
The best part is when Putin gave her boobs 2 thumbs up.
 
It seems Mx. Lauren "Cherie" Southern started up some totally based und redpilled, non-feminist, far right drama!
Screenshot 2024-04-26 155724.png
Lauren's issues with these brownoids are the typical shitlib grievances:
- they hate gays!
- they are misogynistic!
- they are anti-Semitic!
and on and on it goes.
The actual right never cared about any of that. The right was never against immigration cause the people that came were bigoted. The right was against immigration cause they are from fucking alien tribes that do not belong with Europeans. Easy as🥰
 
Last edited:
Largely true and has been allegedly replicated in other study. The reasons are not fully understood, just speculated to be a deterioration in sperm quality or genetic mutations.
There is correlation, but that's about it, and it exists for women too, just less pronounced. Also, risk exists in everything, and all health related risks grow with age, no exceptions.
It's not true at all. The only thing that's true is genetic material degrades over time. The age difference doesn't directly make any fucking difference other than the chance of getting a bunk swimmer. When it comes to sampling sizes, you have something called Staring Into the Statistical Abyss. When you go looking at a sample, you're looking at children with autism. You're going to see a lot of autistic children with many having parents with large age gaps. If the true statement is Genetic Material Wanes Over Time, you can't look at a sample size of autistic children and claim it's statistically significant that old men and young women create more autistic children because the previous above statement directly covers this statement. So there's not really a control group you can compare it to. Even if there was, how do we know age gap was the direct cause? Autism is an inheritable trait. You don't and can't.

So the question has to be, is this statistically significant to the amount of normal children born from these couples? And if the answer is 95% of children are born fine, and .05% have autism, and others have other issues, then does it really fucking matter? The answer is no. It's just soyence cope that feminist harpies can reeeeee and screech about. It's why I'm so critical about viewing things through the lens of KiwiFarms. You can't look at the abyss and make these statements based off the abyss.
 
It's not true at all. The only thing that's true is genetic material degrades over time. The age difference doesn't directly make any fucking difference other than the chance of getting a bunk swimmer. When it comes to sampling sizes, you have something called Staring Into the Statistical Abyss. When you go looking at a sample, you're looking at children with autism. You're going to see a lot of autistic children with many having parents with large age gaps. If the true statement is Genetic Material Wanes Over Time, you can't look at a sample size of autistic children and claim it's statistically significant that old men and young women create more autistic children because the previous above statement directly covers this statement. So there's not really a control group you can compare it to. Even if there was, how do we know age gap was the direct cause? Autism is an inheritable trait. You don't and can't.

So the question has to be, is this statistically significant to the amount of normal children born from these couples? And if the answer is 95% of children are born fine, and .05% have autism, and others have other issues, then does it really fucking matter? The answer is no. It's just soyence cope that feminist harpies can reeeeee and screech about. It's why I'm so critical about viewing things through the lens of KiwiFarms. You can't look at the abyss and make these statements based off the abyss.
B-but the abyss is comfy cozy
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AgendaPoster
It's not true at all. The only thing that's true is genetic material degrades over time. The age difference doesn't directly make any fucking difference other than the chance of getting a bunk swimmer. When it comes to sampling sizes, you have something called Staring Into the Statistical Abyss. When you go looking at a sample, you're looking at children with autism. You're going to see a lot of autistic children with many having parents with large age gaps. If the true statement is Genetic Material Wanes Over Time, you can't look at a sample size of autistic children and claim it's statistically significant that old men and young women create more autistic children because the previous above statement directly covers this statement. So there's not really a control group you can compare it to. Even if there was, how do we know age gap was the direct cause? Autism is an inheritable trait. You don't and can't.

So the question has to be, is this statistically significant to the amount of normal children born from these couples? And if the answer is 95% of children are born fine, and .05% have autism, and others have other issues, then does it really fucking matter? The answer is no. It's just soyence cope that feminist harpies can reeeeee and screech about. It's why I'm so critical about viewing things through the lens of KiwiFarms. You can't look at the abyss and make these statements based off the abyss.
To be completely honest, I just don't care. I also don't think autism is a real thing to be separated from previous mental illness diagnosis.
I don't care enough to wanna change people's minds. I don't care that sperm quality degrades with time. I don't really care about children and marriage outside producing offspring to pay taxes either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Party Hat Wurmple
Do any of those studies take into consideration the lifestyle of the people? You'll hear about age but never about lifestyle, a guy who 30's and fit is very different to 30's and unfit but that aspect never seems to be brought up.
Just depends on your swimmers. Get em tested. Lots of things can impact those.

Don't get me started on Lauren Eastern, she said she ruv me rong time but then she was shit talking me in ching chong to her relatives in a secret Facebook group. And she'd blurt out YOU DIE JOE! at the most inappropriate times
Lauren Western said she'd blow me for $50 and if I wanted her to ride it, to give her meth. I did both and instead she shanked me and took my wallet.
 
Do any of those studies take into consideration the lifestyle of the people? You'll hear about age but never about lifestyle, a guy who 30's and fit is very different to 30's and unfit but that aspect never seems to be brought up.
I'm also pretty sure they've founds links between Vitamin D3 deficiencies and Autism, became a huge problem for the "refugees" in Sweden, as darker skin needs more sun to produce healthy levels. Get your D3 guys, it's important.
 
Because we made it up. There were basically no autistic children in the 90s. You were mentally retarded, or oligophrenic, or a similar diagnosis. To make parents feel better about their lower and lower quality offspring grown without grass touching, frail, unable to hit a ball or smash a pussy, we medics made up some more categories and started to give these idiots stims.
Maybe the truth has a bit more nuance than I maliciously stated above, but it's irrelevant. What matters here is that we invented some shit up to alleviate social ostracizing, and normalized another mental deficiency.
This is true and same thing applies to anyone who is physically fucked up as well. Back in the 1970s people with asthma and whatever other bullshit were just called sickly and that was the end of it. I personally think that most of these new illnesses are completely made up by quacks and pharma companies so they can sell pills to kids and so they can comfort shitty parents for why their kids suck.

Especially illnesses like "adhd" There is no magical brain illness stopping someone from just focusing on doing anything be it work or schooling it is just a matter of work ethic.
 
This is true and same thing applies to anyone who is physically fucked up as well. Back in the 1970s people with asthma and whatever other bullshit were just called sickly and that was the end of it. I personally think that most of these new illnesses are completely made up by quacks and pharma companies so they can sell pills to kids and so they can comfort shitty parents for why their kids suck.

Especially illnesses like "adhd" There is no magical brain illness stopping someone from just focusing on doing anything be it work or schooling it is just a matter of work ethic.
The main driving force in updating the DSM-V in psychology was to make more things codable so they can be medicated and you can charge insurance companies for them. A good chunk of why American health care is expensive and pricing is opaque is so people don't see these interactions and just how insane it is.
 
Back