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.
You should know by now, feminists rarely openly and publicly say what they want for us. They drop little hints as a sort of fun game for their side, but they never openly declare it. They hide behind such tactics as pretending their calls for violence are twisted humor, claiming that their societal plan is a mere thought experiment and not a plan at all and the "it's about women's rights" lie.
Ideological crusades seem more popular for major corporations than profit-making efforts.
Well, if you believe a lower population would result in economic collapse, a compromise they could make is to accept a more fair family court structure.
But it doesn't. Maybe hundreds of years ago, but economically, societally and militarily, women are a massive liability. Their value is artificially inflated by decades of propaganda.
Lowering the amount of men chasing them forces them to either be single forever or act like human beings. Over time, their ego trip will subside and they won't be so self-centered and awful...hopefully.
You should know by now, feminists rarely openly and publicly say what they want for us.
There's a bit of a double game that you're playing, that whenever some feminist, somewhere, says something that you would like to pin on the group, you claim that they are admitting that they want to kill you, or whatever, while if it is inconvenient, you say that they don't really say what they want and that only you can decipher it.
It's not there. It's close to impossible that it would happen.
Ideological crusades seem more popular for major corporations than profit-making efforts.
They're following the path of least resistance. Particularly a more traditional company like MC rather than Twitter.
Well, if you believe a lower population would result in economic collapse, a compromise they could make is to accept a more fair family court structure.
What you believe to be 'fair' is quite unfair for women, unfortunately.
But it doesn't. Maybe hundreds of years ago, but economically, societally and militarily, women are a massive liability. Their value is artificially inflated by decades of propaganda.
Can you point me to all the societies that did much better without this 'massive liability'? Like it or dislike it like Hesiod, fact is that a society can't reproduce without women, and that the reproduction rate is limited by the number of women and not men.
Lowering the amount of men chasing them forces them to either be single forever or act like human beings. Over time, their ego trip will subside and they won't be so self-centered and awful...hopefully.
I don't agree that "they" are awful. They're not committing 98% of the murders and rapes. Those who are awful, are generally bitter single catladies addicted to boxed wine.
A lot of things that were claimed to be just insane and ridiculous of their ideology ended up happening.
Why didn't Visa join in? It was only Mastercard that blocked payments.
Well, their love for fairness never extended to anyone else, so let's call it reparations and be done with it.
We're in 2021. Just fund some scientists to create a way to reproduce without them and claim it's to help gays.
Do you really want to go all 13/50 on me? I don't really want a race debate. The fact is, very few groups have been as sadistic in their psychological abuse as women have, towards adults and children.
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?
You should know by now, feminists rarely openly and publicly say what they want for us. They drop little hints as a sort of fun game for their side, but they never openly declare it. They hide behind such tactics as pretending their calls for violence are twisted humor, claiming that their societal plan is a mere thought experiment and not a plan at all and the "it's about women's rights" lie.
Ideological crusades seem more popular for major corporations than profit-making efforts.
Well, if you believe a lower population would result in economic collapse, a compromise they could make is to accept a more fair family court structure.
But it doesn't. Maybe hundreds of years ago, but economically, societally and militarily, women are a massive liability. Their value is artificially inflated by decades of propaganda.
Lowering the amount of men chasing them forces them to either be single forever or act like human beings. Over time, their ego trip will subside and they won't be so self-centered and awful...hopefully.
There's a bit of a double game that you're playing, that whenever some feminist, somewhere, says something that you would like to pin on the group, you claim that they are admitting that they want to kill you, or whatever, while if it is inconvenient, you say that they don't really say what they want and that only you can decipher it.
It's not there. It's close to impossible that it would happen.
They're following the path of least resistance. Particularly a more traditional company like MC rather than Twitter.
What you believe to be 'fair' is quite unfair for women, unfortunately.
Can you point me to all the societies that did much better without this 'massive liability'? Like it or dislike it like Hesiod, fact is that a society can't reproduce without women, and that the reproduction rate is limited by the number of women and not men.
I don't agree that "they" are awful. They're not committing 98% of the murders and rapes. Those who are awful, are generally bitter single catladies addicted to boxed wine.
A lot of things that were claimed to be just insane and ridiculous of their ideology ended up happening.
Why didn't Visa join in? It was only Mastercard that blocked payments.
Well, their love for fairness never extended to anyone else, so let's call it reparations and be done with it.
We're in 2021. Just fund some scientists to create a way to reproduce without them and claim it's to help gays.
Do you really want to go all 13/50 on me? I don't really want a race debate. The fact is, very few groups have been as sadistic in their psychological abuse as women have, towards adults and children.