“We do not know if recordings of the children made by anyone may be circulating,” said the mother of a 13-year-old attendee. “[sic] What assurance do we have that they are not in the hands of pedophiles?”
Lady, I think you should be more concerned that your city government is pedophiles, and you left your kids with them.
He deliberately doesn't, because he likes it. He's generally pretty far gone in terms of "Men should be required to protect women", so it makes sense he'd ally himself with TERFs.
It's like a jealous ex girlfriend who stalks and harasses you. And any time you bring up any criticism of women he immediately leaps to their defense, screaming "not all women" in whatever roundabout way he wants to.
That's what it wants you to think. Meanwhile in the shadows of the Upside Down, the transdimensional entity known as TheImpossibleOfVenice cackles gleefully as more Internet anons fall into it's web.
You you think a bachelor tax is a good idea, you support alimony, you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out, you apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
But probably #1 argument without wasting too much of my time finding a better one would be this:
Yes. There is historical examples of it, for example in colonial Canada, it was illegal for (I'm vaguely remembering the ages, but it's close) men over 16 and women over 14 to be unmarried, you'd be fined every year you weren't.
In the modern day and age, where there's at least an empty gesture towards caring about freedom even in the more traditionalist regimes, that kind of law would be quite abhorred, but it has existed in the past, and likely will in the future.
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
you support alimony
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
If that's not literally demanding men be required to protect women, I don't know what is.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing, having all the rights of the men who are dying. You are feminist scum. Hopefully there's a war nearby you can go and fight in while your feminist allies safe at home at REDUXX laugh at your likely death.
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Maybe look at the context where that is said. Replying to a guy who claims that single men are victims. So of course I'm going to fling that part of the result of a 'bachelor tax' in his face.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
What you 'write' is just nonsense. And no, 'alimony' is just leveling the playing field, not an undue provision for anyone. But keep playing the victim, boy.
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
What happens to that unborn child if it is not aborted, dumbass? Yes, it comes a born child, which you in your derangement and mirror image feminism think you should be able to opt out from supporting.
Forgive me once again for reading your words, this is a direct quote from you about a law aimed at single men:
The term 'pathetic weasel' was famously used by JBP to refer to those losers who call themselves MGTOWs. No, I'm not going to forgive you for ignoring that in order to push your agenda.
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing
Are you also mad at Publius Cornelius Scipio, boy?
You are feminist scum
There, there. I know you must be mad that you're a genetic dead end, but that is no reason to lash out at me.
Maybe look at the context where that is said. Replying to a guy who claims that single men are victims. So of course I'm going to fling that part of the result of a 'bachelor tax' in his face.
"Stop reading what I write, clearly when I explicitly and deliberately and repeatedly say we should tax men, I actually meant we should tax men and women."
What you 'write' is just nonsense.
You only think that because you're retarded, I'm afraid I don't have enough time to help your reading comprehension at this point.
And no, 'alimony' is just leveling the playing field, not an undue provision for anyone. But keep playing the victim, boy.
Alimony only makes sense if you think women are incapable of working a job or you think men have an obligation to provide for them. For you it's obviously the latter. Pretending it's an "equal playing field" is retarded. Which is obviously what I expect from you, but it should be pointed out.
What happens to that unborn child if it is not aborted, dumbass? Yes, it comes a born child, which you in your derangement and mirror image feminism think you should be able to opt out from supporting.
And in your world, women could be free to abort such a child if the man declared his intention not to support it. Which would result in more children with two parents who actually want them instead of just one. And wait a second, I thought you JUST said you supported an "even playing field". Guess not.
The term 'pathetic weasel' was famously used by JBP to refer to those losers who call themselves MGTOWs. No, I'm not going to forgive you for ignoring that in order to push your agenda.
Oh, well, if some minor internet celebrity once said a thing, and that person hasn't been mentioned at any point anywhere on the page, and you don't in any way indicate it's a quote, and you also make it completely clear that you agree with it, that means when you say it, it doesn't count. Holy shit, you're retarded. But tell me more about my "agenda", mind readers are in such short supply.
Are you also mad at Publius Cornelius Scipio, boy?
When the US army starts issuing pointy sticks and swords instead of guns, I'll take you seriously.
Or when the strongest woman on earth is weakest than the weakest man.
Or when we decide to abolish all physical standards and for some reason, so that this isn't just an obvious symptom of the fact that you value women's lives hugely more than men's.
Or remind me, did women vote in Rome? Or are you selective about what ancient traditions you think are the cornerstone of civilization and which aren't, based solely on whether they agree with what you already think?
Or has "We always did it this way in the past" ever been a good argument for anything? Can you think of anything we did in the past that we don't do now? Do you see your barber for medical advice?
There, there. I know you must be mad that you're a genetic dead end, but that is no reason to lash out at me.
It should really embarrass you what you have to make up about anyone who disagrees with you to make yourself feel better. Is this projection? Do you simp and simp and simp and you still can't find a woman to touch your penis? But thanks for making it obvious once again that you think a man's only value is in whether he's providing for a woman or not, because that is literally my entire point, you practically couldn't admit I'm right any harder.
I know, but I get tired of being beset upon by the gnashing of toothless gums whenever I say what I really think should be done to these disgusting excuses for human beings.
Parents would have known if they had wanted to. Trusting their government not to groom their children at this point can only be willful blindness. What's unreasonable about that?
“We do not know if recordings of the children made by anyone may be circulating,” said the mother of a 13-year-old attendee. “[sic] What assurance do we have that they are not in the hands of pedophiles?”
Lady, I think you should be more concerned that your city government is pedophiles, and you left your kids with them.
He deliberately doesn't, because he likes it. He's generally pretty far gone in terms of "Men should be required to protect women", so it makes sense he'd ally himself with TERFs.
Have you seen how he argues with Imp?
It's like a jealous ex girlfriend who stalks and harasses you. And any time you bring up any criticism of women he immediately leaps to their defense, screaming "not all women" in whatever roundabout way he wants to.
He's like jester but for women instead of jews.
Glad I'm not the only one that sees the pattern.
That's what it wants you to think. Meanwhile in the shadows of the Upside Down, the transdimensional entity known as TheImpossibleOfVenice cackles gleefully as more Internet anons fall into it's web.
Example?
You you think a bachelor tax is a good idea, you support alimony, you're for abortion but against any way for men to opt out, you apparently think single men are "Pathetic weasels afraid that they might have to actually contribute to society."
Basically, all your views together add up to trapping men into providing for women whether they want to or not.
But probably #1 argument without wasting too much of my time finding a better one would be this:
TheImpossible1: "Draft women".
You: "Draft single men"
If that's not literally demanding men be required to protect women, I don't know what is.
WTF is a bachelor tax? Pay the state to compensate being unmarried?
What IGN said, but in this case, it's specifically unmarried men he's talking about, not both men and women.
Yes. There is historical examples of it, for example in colonial Canada, it was illegal for (I'm vaguely remembering the ages, but it's close) men over 16 and women over 14 to be unmarried, you'd be fined every year you weren't.
In the modern day and age, where there's at least an empty gesture towards caring about freedom even in the more traditionalist regimes, that kind of law would be quite abhorred, but it has existed in the past, and likely will in the future.
Tax incentives exist for married people in the west, so there is actually still a bachelor tax, just applied to women as well.
Has nothing to do with 'men having to protect women'. In case you didn't know, women can be single too.
Again, nothing to do with your bizarre gender obsession.
You think that not being able to opt out from supporting your own child that you voluntarily created is 'men having to protect women'? You are beyond deranged.
No, not 'single men'. Try again without the strawman this time.
WOW! Really got me there! What every society has done throughout recorded history, draft single men to fight in wars. It's all for the womans!
My mistake, I made the rookie error of actually reading your text and assuming you know what words mean, because you specifically say men, not women. "while single men pay their fair share". Whoops, maybe stop lying about your own beliefs when you get caught blatantly advocating against men.
Maybe try reading what I actually write. I know reading is almost as hard as writing, but try for me. Here's the sentence you might want to take to a friend to have him explain it to you:
An unborn child, moron. You support abortion, so obviously they don't count. Holy shit, you are beyond deranged.
Forgive me once again for reading your words, this is a direct quote from you about a law aimed at single men: https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/13zg9afh6y/ive-seen-this-page-circulating-a/c/
You want to sacrifice single men to protect women while the women sacrifice nothing, having all the rights of the men who are dying. You are feminist scum. Hopefully there's a war nearby you can go and fight in while your feminist allies safe at home at REDUXX laugh at your likely death.
Maybe look at the context where that is said. Replying to a guy who claims that single men are victims. So of course I'm going to fling that part of the result of a 'bachelor tax' in his face.
What you 'write' is just nonsense. And no, 'alimony' is just leveling the playing field, not an undue provision for anyone. But keep playing the victim, boy.
What happens to that unborn child if it is not aborted, dumbass? Yes, it comes a born child, which you in your derangement and mirror image feminism think you should be able to opt out from supporting.
The term 'pathetic weasel' was famously used by JBP to refer to those losers who call themselves MGTOWs. No, I'm not going to forgive you for ignoring that in order to push your agenda.
Are you also mad at Publius Cornelius Scipio, boy?
There, there. I know you must be mad that you're a genetic dead end, but that is no reason to lash out at me.
"Stop reading what I write, clearly when I explicitly and deliberately and repeatedly say we should tax men, I actually meant we should tax men and women."
You only think that because you're retarded, I'm afraid I don't have enough time to help your reading comprehension at this point.
Alimony only makes sense if you think women are incapable of working a job or you think men have an obligation to provide for them. For you it's obviously the latter. Pretending it's an "equal playing field" is retarded. Which is obviously what I expect from you, but it should be pointed out.
And in your world, women could be free to abort such a child if the man declared his intention not to support it. Which would result in more children with two parents who actually want them instead of just one. And wait a second, I thought you JUST said you supported an "even playing field". Guess not.
Oh, well, if some minor internet celebrity once said a thing, and that person hasn't been mentioned at any point anywhere on the page, and you don't in any way indicate it's a quote, and you also make it completely clear that you agree with it, that means when you say it, it doesn't count. Holy shit, you're retarded. But tell me more about my "agenda", mind readers are in such short supply.
When the US army starts issuing pointy sticks and swords instead of guns, I'll take you seriously.
Or when the strongest woman on earth is weakest than the weakest man.
Or when we decide to abolish all physical standards and for some reason, so that this isn't just an obvious symptom of the fact that you value women's lives hugely more than men's.
Or remind me, did women vote in Rome? Or are you selective about what ancient traditions you think are the cornerstone of civilization and which aren't, based solely on whether they agree with what you already think?
Or has "We always did it this way in the past" ever been a good argument for anything? Can you think of anything we did in the past that we don't do now? Do you see your barber for medical advice?
It should really embarrass you what you have to make up about anyone who disagrees with you to make yourself feel better. Is this projection? Do you simp and simp and simp and you still can't find a woman to touch your penis? But thanks for making it obvious once again that you think a man's only value is in whether he's providing for a woman or not, because that is literally my entire point, you practically couldn't admit I'm right any harder.
All the historical examples the Imp was crying about, and calling 'a bachelor tax' applied to women as well. Doesn't matter what you call it.
speaking of archives... for those that want them take your pick
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Freduxx.info%2Fspanish-parents-to-sue-municipality-over-pornographic-event-for-children%2F
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=url%3ahttps%3a%2f%2freduxx.info%2fspanish-parents-to-sue-municipality-over-pornographic-event-for-children%2f&d=3684323924708&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=S_ipCDZR9ovv99PX1uB60agroJhJD60r
https://yandexwebcache.net/yandbtm?fmode=inject&tm=1660073724&tld=com&lang=en&la=1659679488&text=https%3A//reduxx.info/spanish-parents-to-sue-municipality-over-pornographic-event-for-children/&url=https%3A//reduxx.info/&l10n=en&mime=html&sign=5035034f53fb506be8fa058f74de32d1&keyno=0
above are cache copys below is archive.today
https://archive.ph/20220809184241/https://reduxx.info/spanish-parents-to-sue-municipality-over-pornographic-event-for-children/
and this is a useful extention to quick search archives
https://github.com/dessant/web-archives
https://archive.ph/63LPz
Barcelona is the faggot central of Spain.
They have a gigantic purple dildo shaped building in the middle of their city.
Why would I archive such excellent content?
Not sure you know what 'sophistry' is. The sub agrees that it's excellent content: see the upvotes on the post.
And you disagreed? Are you by any chance Spanish?
>Reduxx
>excellent content
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that this post was extraordinarily well-liked here.
A lawsuit is nowhere near enough, but I'll refrain from glowposting.
i'll just quote morshu "lamp oil, rope, bombs, you want it?"
Me and the glowies driving to the happy merchant to stock up
Rational responses 'glow'. Brilliant work, commies.
I know, but I get tired of being beset upon by the gnashing of toothless gums whenever I say what I really think should be done to these disgusting excuses for human beings.
The true test is not just using lawfare and removing them from office, but also ensuring they never have kids to teach 'the family traditions' to.
Just look at the Bidens, you want more families like that?
You think Hunter hasn't spread his retard genes around the world?
And as far as I can tell, he will continue, much like Hillary who has gotten away with everything.
Meanwhile a Mar-a-lago raiding we will go.
If I put my hand in fire I don't have the right to complain about being burned. This is the parents' fault as far as I'm concerned.
These are parents looking and not liking what they're seeing.
But they gave their children to the state in the first place.
Shit like this didn't used to happen, though.
Anyone with eyes open would know. There's no excuse for willful blindness.
You're unreasonable. In the actual, literal sense.
Parents would have known if they had wanted to. Trusting their government not to groom their children at this point can only be willful blindness. What's unreasonable about that?