It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You're forgetting that women are the most over-privileged group in the world
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
and being blocked from processing payments by Mastercard.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
instead of daring to challenge society's most privileged and uncompromising group.
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
Then how are they uncompromising?
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.
It's implied. If it doesn't push men towards having kids, they don't need it.
And what can you do about it?
What other motive is there? If it was really about protecting kids, why not those sites? Why can someone go on Facebook, which is used to share CP, and buy ads, paying with Mastercard? There has to be a motive, it wasn't just random. The one they gave is obvious BS, so follow the money and it leads to OF being the only beneficiary.
I don't consider a compromise that is knowingly taken for later gains by the same group to be true compromise. A true compromise is sacrifice for the greater good of society.
This is the first time you've said something that genuinely makes me question your sanity. We both know women are overvalued. We both know that pushing more people into the dating market will worsen their already extremely concerning ego trip. Why on earth would you want to tax people who don't get involved? It'd be better for society to tax those who do get involved with them, it can pay for all the damage they cause.
It's implied. If it doesn't push men towards having kids, they don't need it.
That is quite different from saying that they shouldn't have access to it. I have never encountered any place that distinguished between men and women when it came to such things.
If it was really about protecting kids
Good one, you think MasterCard cares about anything other than money?
Pornhub was threatening to become a liability. Pornhub was cut off. They're not on an ideological crusade. They are lining their own pockets.
I don't consider a compromise that is knowingly taken for later gains by the same group to be true compromise. A true compromise is sacrifice for the greater good of society.
Apart from the fact that no such thing exists, that is not the definition of compromise.
This is the first time you've said something that genuinely makes me question your sanity.
You are very kind that it took this long, despite your views and the great difference between yours and mine.
We both know women are overvalued.
I don't know anything of the sort. Considering that the rate of growth of a given society depends on women and not men, it makes perfect sense to put greater value on women than men. If you have 500 men and 500 women, the death of 490 women would be catastrophic, that of 490 men, no so much.
It'd be better for society to tax those who do get involved with them, it can pay for all the damage they cause.
It's not saying that only women should have that privilege. Hell, I bet that would be impossible, just like with the 'male curfew'. Can you imagine a company that says that only women can work flexibly? Maybe mothers, but that's pushing it.
You forgot that I don't believe that. Plenty who come before them.
This isn't about your conspiracy theory that some random woman at Mastercard blocked PornHub, which you asserted without evidence, in order to help OnlyFans, which you also asserted without evidence - and not because Pornhub was involved in a massive scandal over child pornography?
I mean, even in your theory and worldview, they are 'compromising' by allowing rape gangs to operate freely so that Muslims will vote for Labour.
They are saying that. It's very possible, you just only hire women for those positions that involve flexible working. Who is going to find out?
Sorry, they'll only be removed from stock exchanges and dragged through the media, as well as sued for discrimination against women.
Even if you don't believe my reasoning on the Mastercard ban, you can't possibly believe their excuse. Twitter, FB etc are full of CP, they didn't get their payments cut. A massive scandal that just happened to be run through pro-women organizations and end with an action by a company with an openly feminist VP? Come on.
Not what I meant by compromise. I meant for the greater good, not to advance their own agenda.
If society is due to collapse from low birth rates, they will start taxing us for not having kids before they give us any incentive to have them.
I thought you were saying that they said men wouldn't get them.
Then that would make women less desirable employees.
What is more likely, that Twitter is part of the establishment, a large company that is therefore not targeted (not that Twitter users use Mastercard to begin with), or that some random women was trying to help OnlyFans? That is the most far-fetched of the theories that you have advanced. In other cases, you have at least something, no matter how flimsy.
Then how are they uncompromising?
Actually, taxing people who don't have kids sounds like a great idea to me.
It's implied. If it doesn't push men towards having kids, they don't need it.
And what can you do about it?
What other motive is there? If it was really about protecting kids, why not those sites? Why can someone go on Facebook, which is used to share CP, and buy ads, paying with Mastercard? There has to be a motive, it wasn't just random. The one they gave is obvious BS, so follow the money and it leads to OF being the only beneficiary.
I don't consider a compromise that is knowingly taken for later gains by the same group to be true compromise. A true compromise is sacrifice for the greater good of society.
This is the first time you've said something that genuinely makes me question your sanity. We both know women are overvalued. We both know that pushing more people into the dating market will worsen their already extremely concerning ego trip. Why on earth would you want to tax people who don't get involved? It'd be better for society to tax those who do get involved with them, it can pay for all the damage they cause.
That is quite different from saying that they shouldn't have access to it. I have never encountered any place that distinguished between men and women when it came to such things.
Good one, you think MasterCard cares about anything other than money?
Pornhub was threatening to become a liability. Pornhub was cut off. They're not on an ideological crusade. They are lining their own pockets.
Apart from the fact that no such thing exists, that is not the definition of compromise.
You are very kind that it took this long, despite your views and the great difference between yours and mine.
I don't know anything of the sort. Considering that the rate of growth of a given society depends on women and not men, it makes perfect sense to put greater value on women than men. If you have 500 men and 500 women, the death of 490 women would be catastrophic, that of 490 men, no so much.
And how exactly does this lead to more fertility?