Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
KotakuInAction2 The Official Gamergate Forum
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

60
()
posted 3 years ago by folx 3 years ago by folx +61 / -1
112 comments share
112 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (112)
sorted by:
▲ 26 ▼
– Xzal 26 points 3 years ago +26 / -0

Prevent CPS bias toward mother's. Done.

Baby trapping is only done because the man can be blackmailed for his money if it doesn't work out.

If the money isn't guaranteed, then they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 7 ▼
– WhitePhoenix 7 points 3 years ago +7 / -0

You see, here's the problem.

We've seen multiple instances of CPS fucking people over, I watch some truecrime shit and CPS has always been corrupt and fucked up, no matter WHO is doing it, whether it's a private agency or a government institution - some governments have outsourced it to a private firm and it's still a massive shitshow.

So what's our next solution? CPS has been corrupt ever since I've known of its existence and has never gotten better.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -3 ▼
– AntonioOfVenice -3 points 3 years ago +9 / -12

Baby trapping is only done because the man can be blackmailed for his money if it doesn't work out.

What would prevent a man from impregnating women and then dumping them, leaving her to take care of kids without any financial assistance?

they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

Why would this not work the other way around - in the current situation encouraging men to take more measures to not baby anyone up?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 22 ▼
– deleted 22 points 3 years ago +22 / -0
▲ 12 ▼
– FuckGenderPolitics 12 points 3 years ago +14 / -2

What would prevent a man from impregnating women and then dumping them, leaving her to take care of kids without any financial assistance?

She would have abortion rights under this scenario, so that plus the myriad of options she has to avoid pregnancy to begin with.

Why would this not work the other way around

It already does to a certain extent. MGTOW is a thing because men aren't interested in paying for women's bad decisions when women can opt out of doing so. What MGTOWs and MRAs object to is the unfairness of it all. She gets all the choice and he gets robbed blind to pay for it. He had the choice not to fuck her (something MGTOW advocates) of course, but she also had the choice not to fuck him. The imbalance is what comes afterwards. Abortion bans at least fix that.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– blackestknight 0 points 3 years ago +2 / -2

She would have abortion rights under this scenario

Killing babies. Good solution /s

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 5 ▼
– FuckGenderPolitics 5 points 3 years ago +5 / -0

I'm cool with banning it altogether. My original point was that the feminists would have had better luck keeping their abortion privileges if men had something to lose as well. But they valued their free meal tickets over alliance building and they only have themselves to blame for the situation they're in.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ -11 ▼
– AntonioOfVenice -11 points 3 years ago +3 / -14

She would have abortion rights under this scenario, so that plus the myriad of options she has to avoid pregnancy to begin with.

So basically no one will have kids because women know that a man may abdicate his responsibility at any moment?

She gets all the choice

Well yeah, she's hosting the fetus...

Biology is not unfair. MGTOWs and MRAs, like feminists, are at war with biology.

The imbalance is what comes afterwards. Abortion bans at least fix that.

Seems a rather illogical reason for an abortion ban. Like saying that nature and biology is terribly unfair and that we need to equalize things by means of social engineering.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 10 ▼
– FuckGenderPolitics 10 points 3 years ago +10 / -0

The man wouldn't be able to abdicate responsibility at any possible moment?

He would have (ideally) a little less time than the woman would have to abort, that way she could abort if he waits until the last possible moment to sign away his rights/obligations. If he fails to do so by then he's on the hook provided princess can prove he knew about the pregnancy.

Biology is not unfair.

Biology is what it is. It's a set of constraints we have to work under. It's silly to talk about how fair or unfair it is since we can't change it.

MGTOWs and MRAs, like feminists, are at war with biology.

Depending on what you mean by this I may or may not agree with you. If you're talking about denying its basic realities then only the feminists do that. If you mean going against the evolutionary imperative of continuing the species at all costs, then yeah they all do that. The difference is that the MGTOWs and MRAs are doing so as a rational response to the incentives they face. Their behavior will change when and if their incentives change. The feminists do it because they're hateful pieces of shit who are bent on destroying anything that doesn't exclusively cater to them. The only solution to that is to set society up in a way that makes their antisocial behavior impossible.

Seems a rather illogical reason for an abortion ban.

Only if you think that personal responsibility is a burden that only hated classes of people should have to carry like the left does. For some reason people stop giving a shit about her sacred choice when they're the ones who have to suffer all the negative consequences of it. Funny how that works.

saying that nature and biology is terribly unfair and that we need to equalize things by means of social engineering

This is a total straw man of the MGTOW/MRA position. A woman getting a free meal ticket at a man's expense when she pops out a kid against his wishes isn't an immutable result of biology. It's a result of a rotten culture that values her whims over his survival. This has nothing to do with the "my body my choice" bullshit that only applies to favored groups. It's about her getting to offload all the negative consequences of her precious choice onto someone else because the society doesn't value that person. It's the culture they're saying is unfair, not biology.

My ideas are no more social engineering than the current system, or even the prefeminism days. Men evolved to spread their seed as widely as possible, and sticking with the first woman he knocked up would have gotten in the way of that. We also evolved to solve our conflicts violently and engage in a lot of other antisocial behavior because it served us well in nature. Women have a horrible taste in men for the same reason. Our natural state really isn't conducive to civilization, which is why we set up rules and punishments to keep people from acting like animals all the time. You can call that social engineering, civilization, or whatever you want. But it's silly to act like we don't create social structures that encourage behavior we wouldn't otherwise get all the time. The problem with feminism is that it incentives rotten behavior that harms society instead of helping it, often with a justification that denies biological reality. If you want to make the case that financial abortion makes society worse and not better I'll listen with an open mind. But we're really not discussing an attempt to deny biological reality like your social engineering comment suggests. We're just debating the merits of different approaches within the constraints that biology creates.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– dekachin -2 points 3 years ago +2 / -4

you're being consistent as a social conservative here. This whole MGTOW/MRA stance of "it's totally 100% fine for babies to be born as long as the man can abandon the child at will" seems crazy to me. I've never seen it before until recently.

I made a post on r-4chan prior to my most recent suspension that basically said "abortion should either require the consent of both parents to proceed, or MUST proceed as long as even 1 parent wishes it". So the mother and father have equal rights to either preserve or terminate the life. Which one of those options you pick makes you either pro or anti abortion.

It was pretty upvoted, but I got a bunch of responses like "this ain't it, dawg, the mother can have all the rights, as long as the dad can just sign a paper and not have to pay child support". That's so weird to me, because it's basically guaranteeing a huge class of fucked-over children who get raised by single mothers, and like you said: the dudes who are out there already trying to spread their seed into "baby mommas", will just go into turbo overdrive mode now that they know they can 100% escape any consequences.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ 4 ▼
– norwegianwikin 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

Give fathers custody and make women pay child support.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– deleted 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0
▲ 1 ▼
– Xzal 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

Because men have ONE measure. Condoms and those can be sabotaged.

The other is self mutilation for the rest of their reproductive life.

As for your former if pump and dump, I said end CPS bias, not end CPS. Read what is there, not an extreme strawman you've created.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– AntonioOfVenice 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

I wasn't talking about CPS at all, but about "not guaranteeing money" (child support). What in that situation would prevent pumping and dumping?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -7 ▼
– blackestknight -7 points 3 years ago +1 / -8

If the money isn't guaranteed, then they'll be solely financially responsible, and thus likely take more self measures to not get babied up.

Welcome to a world with 99% abortion rate.

We want less abortions, not more. Ergo : Make men have to pay child support day 1 of conception instead.

Wrap that dick if you can't get a good gf you want a child with.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Xzal 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

You realise baby trapping isn't just a case of not using protection right?

Baby trapping more poking holes in condoms, promising a serious relationship getting pregnant then leaving, it's raping men (that'll rustle a few jimmies).

Also 99% abortion rate? Guess you've not heard about roe. Hah.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– blackestknight 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

How is she poking holes in your condoms ?

You fuck girls you don't know well, bring your own condoms, or don't put it in her vagina. It's the same advice we give girls who keep getting pregnant from deadbeat dads.

If you can't practice safe hedonism, reap what you sowed (quite literally) or simply don't engage in hedonism.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Xzal 0 points 3 years ago +1 / -1

Because poking condoms neeeeever happens in a committed relationship and neeeeever abuses trust.

But ofc you'd only think about fuccboi culture.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ 3 ▼
– deleted 3 points 3 years ago +4 / -1
▲ -2 ▼
– TheImpossible1 -2 points 3 years ago +2 / -4

Based.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -2 ▼
– blackestknight -2 points 3 years ago +1 / -3

Abortions should be 100% illegal in the case of elective abortions (economic and/or social reasons). Only caveats should be rape/life of the mother at risk.

You think not wanting dead babies is hateful ? I'd say wanting to kill babies like you do is pretty damn hateful.

Also, the fuck with the chastity belt, wear a damn condom you useless baby killer.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– BigDaddyDangler3 2 points 3 years ago +2 / -0

Rape abortions is less than 1%.

That's just in cases where the polled women gave a reason.

https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

permalink parent save report block reply

Original 8chan Links to Gamer Gate:

.

The main GG discussion is on the videogames board: https://8chan.moe/v/

.

GamerGate archive is at https://8chan.moe/gamergatehq/

.

GamerGate Wiki:

https://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php/Main_Page

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

The below rules are just a summary of the rules which can be found in the Welcome Ashore post.

.

ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity, or criminal manifestos.

.

TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.

.

THREE: Do not threaten, harass, defame, or bully users.

.

FOUR: Do not post involuntary Salacious Material.

.

FIVE: Do not post Porn

.

SIX: NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.

.

SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts or twitter accounts with less than 500 followers, and personal information.

.

EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another.

.

NINE: Do not solicit or engage in transactions that are federally regulated by the US govt.

.

TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.

.

ELEVEN: Do not post spam.

.

TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes.

.

THIRTEEN: No reposts

.

FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.

.

FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users.

.

SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior or conspiring.


Moderators

  • DomitiusOfMassilia
  • ClockworkFool
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - mjm2d (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy