Are the genderwar threads hurting the the website and encouraging infighting?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Are genderwar posters retarded?

  • Total voters
    406
Dyn said:
Probably because I never took the stance that it's good that 10-year-old children get raped as long as they're not white.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing no one took that stance either.

Just a wierd rape obsessed individuals who see theirs mom as a stranger that thinks that's what happened
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gravemind
Jimjamflimflam said:
It all started from another thread that @EverybodyWalktheDinosaur couldn't let go from like a week ago. It had nothing to do with gender war bullshit.
Click to expand...
I know that. My point was two-fold, which I take it was one too many for you to comprehend without shortcircuiting like a robot tossed into a backyard pool.

The main point was that making false analogies and comparisons & using emotionally loaded shit to gotcha someone into a corner is cheap, low-quality argument.
 
So naturally the next question I think we should bridge, if we're cool with saying in-group preferences by familial ties or community or similar are off limits, then it must mean we must treat the situation the same regardless of its proximity to yourself, IE: a rape and murder in a country far away and unrelated to your personal responsibilities and outside of your societal overhead, should draw an equal response as one within your community or close to you personally. Anyone have an issue with this?

I guess my next question if this is true is, is it morally wrong to do nothing in response? for example, if I see a burning building, Im not personally punished for not helping to put it out; its simply not my responsibility. to put it another way, are there morally neutral actions, like not helping to put out fires, or is this a negative thing that should face social or legal repercussions? If there are morally neutral actions, is it ok to feel nothing or do no action in response to women being raped, regardless of its proximity, if its not your responsibility?
 
  • Autistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Gravemind, Jimjamflimflam and Epic Fail Man
Await said:
So naturally the next question I think we should bridge, if we're cool with saying in-group preferences by familial ties or community or similar are off limits, then it must mean we must treat the situation the same regardless of its proximity to yourself, IE: a rape and murder in a country far away and unrelated to your personal responsibilities and outside of your societal overhead, should draw an equal response as one within your community or close to you personally. Anyone have an issue with this?

I guess my next question if this is true is, is it morally wrong to do nothing in response? for example, if I see a burning building, Im not personally punished for not helping to put it out; its simply not my responsibility. to put it another way, are there morally neutral actions, like not helping to put out fires, or is this a negative thing that should face social or legal repercussions? If there are morally neutral actions, is it ok to feel nothing or do no action in response to women being raped, regardless of its proximity, if its not your responsibility?
Click to expand...
1696164284866323.png
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: PhoBingas, Gravemind, The Ugly One and 1 other person
Friend of Dorothy Parker said:
I know that. My point was two-fold, which I take it was one too many for you to comprehend without shortcircuiting like a robot tossed into a backyard pool.

The main point was that making false analogies and comparisons & using emotionally loaded shit to gotcha someone into a corner is cheap, low-quality argument.
Click to expand...
Whose the greater fool? The one who leads or the one that follows?

The initial prompt concerning if it's acceptable to have in group preference v out group. One of the ways to demonstrate that is using immediate family v non family.

There no gotchas there. It's all very plain and straight forward. Are you allowed to be relieved that your family member that you thought was hurt is safe even though that means a stranger was hurt instead.

It would be acceptable for anyway to say yes. I put more concern on my family then a stranger. Perfectly acceptable response.
 
Any woman who complains about how women are spoken of on this forum are intentionally cherry picking. There is literally not a single group on Earth that doesn't get vile hate spewed about them. People talk about genociding niggers, jews, muslims, christians, the left, the right, men, whites, etc. We talk about men being raped (optionally by niggers) in prison constantly and laugh about it.

Any women who expect men to white knight for them on KIWIFARMS needs to readjust their expectations. You are an adult, you can fend for yourself just like every other user.

Most of the ladies who are bitter about the shit talking they get are just as vicious and hateful as the people they complain about.

With that said, I am beyond sick of the incels whining about how unfair life is and how much of a loser they are. Not every woman is a tiktok whore waiting for the first chance to divorce rape you. Stop, take a breath and remember women like @Otterly exist.

The mass stereotyping of everything is getting out of control.
 
  • Like
  • Dumb
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Riot Guard, Lord Xenu, Jerry1337 and 28 others
Await said:
So naturally the next question I think we should bridge, if we're cool with saying in-group preferences by familial ties or community or similar are off limits, then it must mean we must treat the situation the same regardless of its proximity to yourself, IE: a rape and murder in a country far away and unrelated to your personal responsibilities and outside of your societal overhead, should draw an equal response as one within your community or close to you personally. Anyone have an issue with this?

I guess my next question if this is true is, is it morally wrong to do nothing in response? for example, if I see a burning building, Im not personally punished for not helping to put it out; its simply not my responsibility. to put it another way, are there morally neutral actions, like not helping to put out fires, or is this a negative thing that should face social or legal repercussions? If there are morally neutral actions, is it ok to feel nothing or do no action in response to women being raped, regardless of its proximity, if its not your responsibility?
Click to expand...
Come for the gender wars, stay for the train trolley problem

Imo the worst action is to help but not see it through. That's far worse then being neutral.

Helping is the most noble thing to do but being expected to is a problem. It's a hard question, there's no real clear cut since not helping in a situation of a baby crawling into a busy street when it would present little to no harm to you is terrible but being expected to enter a buitning building that can cost your life is a selfish attitude from others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6thRanger
Jimjamflimflam said:
Come for the gender wars, stay for the train trolley problem
Click to expand...
Ive been reading a bit of the slap fight and really I think this is the question thats being asked here, is it ok that men sometimes dont care women are harmed, keeping proximity outside of the consideration.
 
Dyn said:
I agree entirely, in fact there's a subforum here called Articles & Happenings that seems to occasionally be mass stereotyping people based on race. You should bring this point up over there and see how it goes.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a wonderful idea!
 
the difference is there are both genders in every race and nationalities. you can't really consider the other gender non-human as they are essential in co-existing with you.

You can however call indians, niggers, etc non-humans because they are not required to co-exist with you, and detaching them in your environment will not result in much consequence as it is to detach yourself from the other half of human kind.

I get the comparison to A&H seething about one or another race, but it is not the same. As someone who's been out touching grass in dozens of ethnic countries there is much merit to being prejudice to another culture, especially if they've invaded your ecosystem.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Lord Xenu, Jimjamflimflam and Gravemind
Jimjamflimflam said:
Whose the greater fool? The one who leads or the one that follows?

The initial prompt concerning if it's acceptable to have in group preference v out group. One of the ways to demonstrate that is using immediate family v non family.

There no gotchas there. It's all very plain and straight forward. Are you allowed to be relieved that your family member that you thought was hurt is safe even though that means a stranger was hurt instead.

It would be acceptable for anyway to say yes. I put more concern on my family then a stranger. Perfectly acceptable response.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see, so your question had no intent for any broader implication. Sure, I believe that. Now about that bridge deal you were talking about....

Netizennameless said:
Any woman who
Click to expand...
Why is it that one cannot use the word "woman" without causing such rage that and distraction that readers can't see any other words?

The point of the illustration was (again, jfc) 1) tawdry and disingenuous question, bc 2) a cool, logical answer would get the person posed such a question branded as a cold automaton - for example, someone would say, "your mother is a stranger to you."

The formulation of the question and black/white interpretation of the answer is prima facie evidence of the disingenuous intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grenouille crétine and Justa Grata Honoria
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: grenouille crétine, glitterglue, Blackhole and 2 others
Friend of Dorothy Parker said:
Oh, I see, so your question had no intent for any broader implication. Sure, I believe that. Now about that bridge deal you were talking about....
Click to expand...

Nah. Just that I prefer my own race over shitskin Indians and if harm should happen its better them then us. That's all. No delusions they wouldn't say the same but with the races reversed.

As for the bridge it's called the Gender Gap Bridge. Sell it to you at a steal....
 
  • Like
Reactions: m1ddl3m4rch
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back