💊 Manosphere SlayerOfTranny

[Bassomatic]

Music can be debated but @SlayerOfTyranny has an awful taste in human interaction.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I really like nightcore

This song is about something that @SlayerOfTranny will never experience

 

[DrChristianTroy]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=68wjb6d0r50
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nLzjm9E1hwg
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bek1y2uiQGA
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ooZwmeUfuXg
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jYfdmWg_EMM
Watch the video with this one:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4hvQLgHvUJc
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FRDSG_8PuE8
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Nymjfq2kXnI
https://youtube.com/watch?v=psvkEwBr-fU
https://youtube.com/watch?v=TMD3nUd_CtE
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mehLx_Fjv_c
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2O0kuoiAm2A

If you could quit wasting our time with wackness that would be super.

 

[SlayerOfTyranny]

Nightcore is pretty good although don't think I've ever met someone other than myself who would actually listen to it.

This song is about something that @SlayerOfTranny will never experience

If you could quit wasting our time with wackness that would be super.

I wonder if christian troy is black or just frontin

 

[supdup]

Don't worry kiwi's at some point if I feel so inclined I will resume our debate (possibly,haven't read the replies yet)

However I don't know if I am in such a mood at the moment

Don't bother. You really don't have the chops. You seem to think an assertion is the same thing as an argument, so you aren't even debating. You're basically just saying "My opinion is true because I say it is".

 

[DrChristianTroy]

I wonder if christian troy is black or just frontin

How am I frontin? What does race have to do with anything? Please explain how you came to this conclusion.

 

[SlayerOfTyranny]

Taking a look over it...

Sanae's arguments:

Hunter-gatherer societies in the earliest iteration of human civilization focused primarily on males hunting game while women gathered fruit, berries, and the like. This was due to the athletic superiority of males (for hunting) and for the better visual clarity of women regarding colors (for not picking poisoned shit). When agriculture started to become a thing, this allowed males to stop hunting and focus more on toiling the land and cultivating crops. This subsequently sequestered women into a more domestic role tending to the family and ensuring that the children grew up healthy. While this was a fair compromise and division of roles, the fact that women were restricted to a more domestic role meant that there was a greater emphasis on males as the breadwinner and, as a result, the "head" of the family, forming the patriarchal structure that most of early civilizations operated on.

So you agree with me is what you are saying.

Of course this is all pointless because you haven't even given a reason for your claim to exist in the first place besides "HURR DURR MALES ARE BETTER IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE THEY CREATED EVERYTHING" which is around the same logic as "HURR DURR CREATION IS REAL IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED."

Yes I did.I said 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male.This is a verifiable fact.

But you still can't get laid.

You do realize that 99% of all scientific,philosophical,and religious development throughout history has been done by people who got laid?

Sex is probably a bigger deal to you than it is to me.

If athletic superiority were the measure of human superiority, wouldn't blacks be the unquestioned master race? They utterly crush whites in almost every sport.

If mental superiority were the measure of human superiority, wouldn't yellows be the unquestioned master race? They get way better grades than whites.

If survival superiority were the measure of human superiority, wouldn't reds be the unquestioned master race? Some of them can drink anthrax water.

If genetic superiority were the measure of human superiority, wouldn't women be the unquestioned master race? Men suffer genetic defects and problems way more than women, what with women having two X chromosomes and thus being able to double up on shielding for things like lethal recessives.

If sexual superiority were the measure of human superiority, wouldn't 99% of humanity be unquestionably superior to @SlayerOfTyranny?

Rhetorical question, Thonis.

This is going off on a tangent.We don't need to discuss all of this.

The point isn't even that men are "superior" it's that women are quite different from men and they are not "equal".They are not the same.They naturally fall into different roles and this site likes to deny this and pretend there "are no differences".

Isn't the flipside of this "women are inferior" argument the unpleasant fact that Sluthaters can't talk to, get dates with, get the attention of, or basically even register with this "inferior gender"? All that genetic superiority, all that penis ownership, counts for less than fuck all for a Sluthater?

So by your own argument it goes Men > Women > Sluthaters

Is this correct? If so, what are Sluthaters superior to?

Men > Women > Sluthaters > ...Moss?

You are talking about individual males.

I am talking about men overall and women overall.

And yet again the point isn't "women are inferior".

In fact much of the existence of said males is due to feminism which is the great irony.

These are broken males,not the type of "men" I am talking about.

If women have been oppressed, we would definitely see men getting all the credit for human accomplishment. And the 99% figure you pulled out of your ass would hold true. I think something you're ignoring is that history is written by those in power. Women historically have not been allowed to pursuit things that would lead to human accomplishment, therefore you are going to see more men making those accomplishments. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of women.

Dude, seriously, basic logic is not hard.

Yes both you and Sanae pulled exactly the card I knew you would and said you would.

Your argument fails though because women could not have been oppressed in the first place if they were equal to men and the same as men.

"Haven't been allowed"

You realize your argument contradicts itself right?

Or maybe you don't....

They can be. There are women who are stronger than most men, just as there are men weaker than most women. I think your whole tired "women are different" argument is pretty darned weak. If we look at a population of men, there is going to be vast differences between them. Differences that can be even more drastic than the generalized differences between men and women. And as society moves further and further away from manual labor, men being physically stronger is less and less important.

You keep arguing with assertions and you haven't demonstrated even a rudimentary understanding of culture and history. Your arguments and ideas are pretty darned simplistic and stuff that usually will come out of a teenagers mouth. I suggest you do some more reading and studying before you sperg out on the internet and make yourself look ignorant.

It's not a matter of "men have a bigger nose than women" or something inane like that.

It's that their fundamental natures are totally different.

You can't possibly be good with women if you don't even get this.

Women are submissive.Men are dominant.

That is how humans are programmed.

That is how you are wired.

Just like you are wired to get hungry and want to eat some junk food.

Of course there are deviations from this.

But if you are talking about how humans are designed to ideally function,that is it.

It's just human nature.

Since you claim so much experience with women,I'm shocked you don't know this.

I don't mean to sound rude and don't answer if I do but...

Don't you ever dominate your wife and take control?Do you lead her and are you in charge?

If not she might actually appreciate it.I'm being dead serious.

I could literally care less what girls on here say,I know what women respond to in real life.They are loathe to admit it and hate discussing the subject (in situations such as this) but that is how they are.

They are wired like that.They can try to be "men" all they want but they are the same as a starving person saying "I'm not actually hungry"

And men couldn't exist or do anything without women. Men would not have been able to create anything independently either. Your point is moot.

Yes women are necessary (obviously) but the roles are different.Like I said.That's what you aren't getting.

For some reason I'm reminded of Crick and Watson screwing Rosalind Franklin out of a Nobel prize for her research into DNA.

But, y'know, penis, superiority, dominance, raaar, etc.

Picking out an example of one successful women doesn't invalidate what I am saying.

Difference is not the same thing as superior or inferior. You're making a false equivocation and ultimately hurting whatever point you're trying to make. I'll explain. You're basically saying because men have differences that led to human accomplishment, that means the capabilities of men are superior to women and the subjugation of women is warranted. If you're not saying that, you need to modify your points because that's the conclusion you seem to be reaching for. Based on that, we can then look at a population of men. Within that population there is going to men that are stupid, weak, lazy and such just as there are men that are strong, intelligent, motivated and such. Using your assertions, we must then subjugate the weaker men just the same as women. What this shows is that your argument about the differences between women and men can equally be applied to just men as well.

I already addressed this...in fact I've already addressed plenty of people's points before they even made them but for your sakes I am re clarifying.

I am not advocating for "subjugation" of women.I am however advocating for women to be women and men to be men.Instead of this current shit show where everyone is totally the same and totally "equal" with absolute ignorance to fundamental human nature.

It's not even a debate, really. What was asked is that he show scientific evidence that women are "inferior" to men. He used a roundabout claim providing no actual sources for said claim, nothing that was ever actually studied in an experiment and run through the usual channels of scientific investigation, and he'll likely use the broad assertion of how the establishment of early patriarchal societies that basically formed the basis of most early civilization as his reasoning for why women are inferior, despite the fact that it's already been explained why such a system propagated to begin with.

In short, he's caught in a weak argument of his own design and he'll just double down on his weak ass claims because, technically, we're not able to provide the evidence that specifically proves him wrong. It's the most egregious type of argument and no one with any actual academic background or vested interest in this field of study would take his autistic ramblings seriously. All he'll do is claim we're "brainwashed" and that no one could provide him a suitable answer to refute him because he's asking for something that is basically impossible to ever fulfill. It's typical goalpost shifting and no one who values their time would actually take this autistic shit seriously for more than five minutes.

This is your beloved escape.

You want to force things to get super technical as an escape since you can't handle my arguments in a general sense.So instead of addressing them generally you force going deeply technical.

I already provided evidence but of course you just can't accept anything unless it has some sort of scientific paper/study written on it.

As far as I am concerned the things I have said are self evident but obviously not to you.

We both know you were unable to address this simple question:

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

You tried the tired old "Women were oppressed" argument which I already debunked above which is quite easy since it contradicts itself.

I provided evidence for my claim and you failed to refute it.Pretty easy to understand from my point of view.

If you don't think that 99% of human accomplishment being male is self evident then I really don't know what to tell you Sanae.

Aren't you like 19 by the way?

Your arrogance shows I will tell you that...

Marie Curie. Rosalind Franklin. Ada Lovelace. Grace Hopper.

Your move.

Here's a more contemporary list of 50 women.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/feat50

I think the bigger question is what the fuck has @SlayerOfTyranny done besides spewing nonsense on the internet?

And the woman scientist that Mr. Totally-not-Thonis should be most grateful for: Temple Grandin.

Already explained this one.Doesn't refute my point.

 

[Dr. Boe Jangles Esq.]

Taking a look over it...

Sanae's arguments:



So you agree with me is what you are saying.



Yes I did.I said 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male.This is a verifiable fact.



Sex is probably a bigger deal to you than it is to me.



This is going off on a tangent.We don't need to discuss all of this.

The point isn't even that men are "superior" it's that women are quite different from men and they are not "equal".They are not the same.They naturally fall into different roles and this site likes to deny this and pretend there "are no differences".



You are talking about individual males.

I am talking about men overall and women overall.

And yet again the point isn't "women are inferior".

In fact much of the existence of said males is due to feminism which is the great irony.

These are broken males,not the type of "men" I am talking about.



Yes both you and Sanae pulled exactly the card I knew you would and said you would.

Your argument fails though because women could not have been oppressed in the first place if they were equal to men and the same as men.

"Haven't been allowed"

You realize your argument contradicts itself right?

Or maybe you don't....



It's not a matter of "men have a bigger nose than women" or something inane like that.

It's that their fundamental natures are totally different.

You can't possibly be good with women if you don't even get this.

Women are submissive.Men are dominant.

That is how humans are programmed.

That is how you are wired.

Just like you are wired to get hungry and want to eat some junk food.

Of course there are deviations from this.

But if you are talking about how humans are designed to ideally function,that is it.

It's just human nature.

Since you claim so much experience with women,I'm shocked you don't know this.

I don't mean to sound rude and don't answer if I do but...

Don't you ever dominate your wife and take control?Do you lead her and are you in charge?

If not she might actually appreciate it.I'm being dead serious.

I could literally care less what girls on here say,I know what women respond to in real life.They are loathe to admit it and hate discussing the subject (in situations such as this) but that is how they are.

They are wired like that.They can try to be "men" all they want but they are the same as a starving person saying "I'm not actually hungry"



Yes women are necessary (obviously) but the roles are different.Like I said.That's what you aren't getting.



Picking out an example of one successful women doesn't invalidate what I am saying.



I already addressed this...in fact I've already addressed plenty of people's points before they even made them but for your sakes I am re clarifying.

I am not advocating for "subjugation" of women.I am however advocating for women to be women and men to be men.Instead of this current shit show where everyone is totally the same and totally "equal" with absolute ignorance to fundamental human nature.



This is your beloved escape.

You want to force things to get super technical as an escape since you can't handle my arguments in a general sense.So instead of addressing them generally you force going deeply technical.

I already provided evidence but of course you just can't accept anything unless it has some sort of scientific paper/study written on it.

As far as I am concerned the things I have said are self evident but obviously not to you.

We both know you were unable to address this simple question:

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

You tried the tired old "Women were oppressed" argument which I already debunked above which is quite easy since it contradicts itself.

I provided evidence for my claim and you failed to refute it.Pretty easy to understand from my point of view.

If you don't think that 99% of human accomplishment being male is self evident then I really don't know what to tell you Sanae.

Aren't you like 19 by the way?

Your arrogance shows I will tell you that...







Already explained this one.Doesn't refute my point.

Okay, honest show of hands:
Who actually read all that?

 

[KingGeedorah]

Okay, honest show of hands:
Who actually read all that?

Fuck no way man. I just wanna talk about music not read dumb MRA lolicon fanfiction.

 

[A Ghost]

@SlayerOfTyranny dont feel like quoting you but and im saying this again no one here cares about your feminist theory class you want to spergy about that go back to lookism or sluthate which every one you prefer

 

[AnOminous]

Taking a look over it...

Nobody reads shit like this you fucking mongoloid.

 

[DrChristianTroy]

Fuck no way man. I just wanna talk about music not read dumb MRA lolicon fanfiction.

Are you sure? Surely 3 paragraphs separated by sentence is something everybody wants to read.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

You're not missing much.

It's basically just the standard "Nope, i'm right, you're wrong" card that all SH'ers pull when they've lost a debate.

 

[MegasHant]

@SlayerOfTyranny where's your pics?

 

[DrChristianTroy]

You're not missing much.

It's basically just the standard "Nope, i'm right, you're wrong" card that all SH'ers pull when they've lost a debate.

Are you sure?

Are you positive?

Surely making you read big posts proves a point.

Hopefully.

Right?

 

[Cthulu]

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

The whole point you're avoiding is that question. How has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male? What is your proof? Self-evident doesn't cut it. It's not. It's not even a provable assertion. It's an opinion you're trying to wedge in as a fact.

 

[HickoryDickory]

Taking a look over it...

Sanae's arguments:



So you agree with me is what you are saying.



Yes I did.I said 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male.This is a verifiable fact.



Sex is probably a bigger deal to you than it is to me.



This is going off on a tangent.We don't need to discuss all of this.

The point isn't even that men are "superior" it's that women are quite different from men and they are not "equal".They are not the same.They naturally fall into different roles and this site likes to deny this and pretend there "are no differences".



You are talking about individual males.

I am talking about men overall and women overall.

And yet again the point isn't "women are inferior".

In fact much of the existence of said males is due to feminism which is the great irony.

These are broken males,not the type of "men" I am talking about.



Yes both you and Sanae pulled exactly the card I knew you would and said you would.

Your argument fails though because women could not have been oppressed in the first place if they were equal to men and the same as men.

"Haven't been allowed"

You realize your argument contradicts itself right?

Or maybe you don't....



It's not a matter of "men have a bigger nose than women" or something inane like that.

It's that their fundamental natures are totally different.

You can't possibly be good with women if you don't even get this.

Women are submissive.Men are dominant.

That is how humans are programmed.

That is how you are wired.

Just like you are wired to get hungry and want to eat some junk food.

Of course there are deviations from this.

But if you are talking about how humans are designed to ideally function,that is it.

It's just human nature.

Since you claim so much experience with women,I'm shocked you don't know this.

I don't mean to sound rude and don't answer if I do but...

Don't you ever dominate your wife and take control?Do you lead her and are you in charge?

If not she might actually appreciate it.I'm being dead serious.

I could literally care less what girls on here say,I know what women respond to in real life.They are loathe to admit it and hate discussing the subject (in situations such as this) but that is how they are.

They are wired like that.They can try to be "men" all they want but they are the same as a starving person saying "I'm not actually hungry"



Yes women are necessary (obviously) but the roles are different.Like I said.That's what you aren't getting.



Picking out an example of one successful women doesn't invalidate what I am saying.



I already addressed this...in fact I've already addressed plenty of people's points before they even made them but for your sakes I am re clarifying.

I am not advocating for "subjugation" of women.I am however advocating for women to be women and men to be men.Instead of this current shit show where everyone is totally the same and totally "equal" with absolute ignorance to fundamental human nature.



This is your beloved escape.

You want to force things to get super technical as an escape since you can't handle my arguments in a general sense.So instead of addressing them generally you force going deeply technical.

I already provided evidence but of course you just can't accept anything unless it has some sort of scientific paper/study written on it.

As far as I am concerned the things I have said are self evident but obviously not to you.

We both know you were unable to address this simple question:

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

You tried the tired old "Women were oppressed" argument which I already debunked above which is quite easy since it contradicts itself.

I provided evidence for my claim and you failed to refute it.Pretty easy to understand from my point of view.

If you don't think that 99% of human accomplishment being male is self evident then I really don't know what to tell you Sanae.

Aren't you like 19 by the way?

Your arrogance shows I will tell you that...







Already explained this one.Doesn't refute my point.

Tag, faggot.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Taking a look over it...

Sanae's arguments:



So you agree with me is what you are saying.



Yes I did.I said 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male.This is a verifiable fact.



Sex is probably a bigger deal to you than it is to me.



This is going off on a tangent.We don't need to discuss all of this.

The point isn't even that men are "superior" it's that women are quite different from men and they are not "equal".They are not the same.They naturally fall into different roles and this site likes to deny this and pretend there "are no differences".



You are talking about individual males.

I am talking about men overall and women overall.

And yet again the point isn't "women are inferior".

In fact much of the existence of said males is due to feminism which is the great irony.

These are broken males,not the type of "men" I am talking about.



Yes both you and Sanae pulled exactly the card I knew you would and said you would.

Your argument fails though because women could not have been oppressed in the first place if they were equal to men and the same as men.

"Haven't been allowed"

You realize your argument contradicts itself right?

Or maybe you don't....



It's not a matter of "men have a bigger nose than women" or something inane like that.

It's that their fundamental natures are totally different.

You can't possibly be good with women if you don't even get this.

Women are submissive.Men are dominant.

That is how humans are programmed.

That is how you are wired.

Just like you are wired to get hungry and want to eat some junk food.

Of course there are deviations from this.

But if you are talking about how humans are designed to ideally function,that is it.

It's just human nature.

Since you claim so much experience with women,I'm shocked you don't know this.

I don't mean to sound rude and don't answer if I do but...

Don't you ever dominate your wife and take control?Do you lead her and are you in charge?

If not she might actually appreciate it.I'm being dead serious.

I could literally care less what girls on here say,I know what women respond to in real life.They are loathe to admit it and hate discussing the subject (in situations such as this) but that is how they are.

They are wired like that.They can try to be "men" all they want but they are the same as a starving person saying "I'm not actually hungry"



Yes women are necessary (obviously) but the roles are different.Like I said.That's what you aren't getting.



Picking out an example of one successful women doesn't invalidate what I am saying.



I already addressed this...in fact I've already addressed plenty of people's points before they even made them but for your sakes I am re clarifying.

I am not advocating for "subjugation" of women.I am however advocating for women to be women and men to be men.Instead of this current shit show where everyone is totally the same and totally "equal" with absolute ignorance to fundamental human nature.



This is your beloved escape.

You want to force things to get super technical as an escape since you can't handle my arguments in a general sense.So instead of addressing them generally you force going deeply technical.

I already provided evidence but of course you just can't accept anything unless it has some sort of scientific paper/study written on it.

As far as I am concerned the things I have said are self evident but obviously not to you.

We both know you were unable to address this simple question:

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

You tried the tired old "Women were oppressed" argument which I already debunked above which is quite easy since it contradicts itself.

I provided evidence for my claim and you failed to refute it.Pretty easy to understand from my point of view.

If you don't think that 99% of human accomplishment being male is self evident then I really don't know what to tell you Sanae.

Aren't you like 19 by the way?

Your arrogance shows I will tell you that...







Already explained this one.Doesn't refute my point.

Women are estimated to have contributed about 50% of the GDP historically through domestic labour, it is real work with real value

History is not made by great men but rather through the interactions of ordinary people through an extended period of time.

You may say that men are remembered more but that isn't saying that they contributed more (although I will give it to you that many of the remembered men contributed at an exceptional level and that there may be a larger male standard deviation)

 

[Emiya Kiwitsugu]

Taking a look over it...

Sanae's arguments:



So you agree with me is what you are saying.



Yes I did.I said 99%+ of significant historical accomplishment is male.This is a verifiable fact.



Sex is probably a bigger deal to you than it is to me.



This is going off on a tangent.We don't need to discuss all of this.

The point isn't even that men are "superior" it's that women are quite different from men and they are not "equal".They are not the same.They naturally fall into different roles and this site likes to deny this and pretend there "are no differences".



You are talking about individual males.

I am talking about men overall and women overall.

And yet again the point isn't "women are inferior".

In fact much of the existence of said males is due to feminism which is the great irony.

These are broken males,not the type of "men" I am talking about.



Yes both you and Sanae pulled exactly the card I knew you would and said you would.

Your argument fails though because women could not have been oppressed in the first place if they were equal to men and the same as men.

"Haven't been allowed"

You realize your argument contradicts itself right?

Or maybe you don't....



It's not a matter of "men have a bigger nose than women" or something inane like that.

It's that their fundamental natures are totally different.

You can't possibly be good with women if you don't even get this.

Women are submissive.Men are dominant.

That is how humans are programmed.

That is how you are wired.

Just like you are wired to get hungry and want to eat some junk food.

Of course there are deviations from this.

But if you are talking about how humans are designed to ideally function,that is it.

It's just human nature.

Since you claim so much experience with women,I'm shocked you don't know this.

I don't mean to sound rude and don't answer if I do but...

Don't you ever dominate your wife and take control?Do you lead her and are you in charge?

If not she might actually appreciate it.I'm being dead serious.

I could literally care less what girls on here say,I know what women respond to in real life.They are loathe to admit it and hate discussing the subject (in situations such as this) but that is how they are.

They are wired like that.They can try to be "men" all they want but they are the same as a starving person saying "I'm not actually hungry"



Yes women are necessary (obviously) but the roles are different.Like I said.That's what you aren't getting.



Picking out an example of one successful women doesn't invalidate what I am saying.



I already addressed this...in fact I've already addressed plenty of people's points before they even made them but for your sakes I am re clarifying.

I am not advocating for "subjugation" of women.I am however advocating for women to be women and men to be men.Instead of this current shit show where everyone is totally the same and totally "equal" with absolute ignorance to fundamental human nature.



This is your beloved escape.

You want to force things to get super technical as an escape since you can't handle my arguments in a general sense.So instead of addressing them generally you force going deeply technical.

I already provided evidence but of course you just can't accept anything unless it has some sort of scientific paper/study written on it.

As far as I am concerned the things I have said are self evident but obviously not to you.

We both know you were unable to address this simple question:

"Why has 99% of significant human accomplishment been male?"

You tried the tired old "Women were oppressed" argument which I already debunked above which is quite easy since it contradicts itself.

I provided evidence for my claim and you failed to refute it.Pretty easy to understand from my point of view.

If you don't think that 99% of human accomplishment being male is self evident then I really don't know what to tell you Sanae.

Aren't you like 19 by the way?

Your arrogance shows I will tell you that...







Already explained this one.Doesn't refute my point.

I see you're getting really triggered by @Sanae Kochiya again, Blaz.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

I see you're getting really triggered by @Sanae Kochiya again, Blaz.

Oh, but wait, according to Slayer, we're the ones who are totes getting mad, not him.

So it must be true...