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.
"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."
Looks like you finally discovered the concept of a 'subset'. You could have done so earlier if you hadn't dropped out in middle school.
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.
You're amazingly mad on the internet.
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.
No, you dimwit extraordinaire, alimony makes sense when one marriage partner takes care of the home and the children, forgoing wages, work experience, etc. - leaving that one worse off in case of a divorce, while the benefits accrue to the household as a whole.
That is why alimony is appropriate. 'Course, you can't think beyond "WOMENZ BAD", so you rave like the lunatic you are.
And in your world, women could be free to abort such a child if the man declared his intention not to support it.
Just what we need: fewer men taking care of their children, so your fat ass can wholly be without responsibilities (not that you are able to get a girl to begin with, so you claim to 'go your own way').
I thought you JUST said you supported an "even playing field". Guess not.
Yes? Once you're carrying a fetus, you can decide on the abortion in the first few months. God damnit, you're dumb.
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
That's quite an attempt to divert from the fact that you were too dumb to recognize a relevant quote.
When the US army starts issuing pointy sticks and swords instead of guns, I'll take you seriously.
Oh wait, so for all of recorded history, it was OK to draft just men - but when "guns" were introduced, it became wrong? So you're seething about basically every war for the past 150 or so years? Here I was thinking you were just mad on the internet. You're mad in real life too!
Or when the strongest woman on earth is weakest than the weakest man.
Great.
Why didn't Scipio recruit them?
you value women's lives hugely more than men's.
Your life is worthless. But not because you are male. Because you're a goddamn idiot, a self-pitying seeting loser, who thankfully will be a genetic dead end.
Or has "We always did it this way in the past" ever been a good argument for anything?
Since always, because that which has withstood the test of time is superior to what you made up five minutes ago. And look at the results of ignoring the past.
you practically couldn't admit I'm right any harder.
You couldn't produce anything, and every one of your supposed points was completely demolished. So phonily declaring victory was all that was left to you.
Looks like you finally discovered the concept of a 'subset'. You could have done so earlier if you hadn't dropped out in middle school.
I discovered the concept of assuming that what you say is what you mean. I'm sorry that quoting things you said is inconvenient when you want to hide how much of a simp you are.
You're amazingly mad on the internet.
NO U
No, you dimwit extraordinaire, alimony makes sense when one marriage partner takes care of the home and the children, forgoing wages, work experience, etc. - leaving that one worse off in case of a divorce, while the benefits accrue to the household as a whole.
So one side provides services which are simultaneously so valuable they add up to half the value of the marriage, while also so valueless they are completely worthless in the job market, and also even when the woman stops providing any of those services, the man still has to pay her. Yeah, that makes sense. Simp harder.
That is why alimony is appropriate. 'Course, you can't think beyond "WOMENZ BAD", so you rave like the lunatic you are.
See, that's the difference between you and me, I only have to quote what you actually say to make you look like a moron, you have to make shit up and strawman me.
Just what we need: fewer men taking care of their children, so your fat ass can wholly be without responsibilities (not that you are able to get a girl to begin with, so you claim to 'go your own way').
If your arguments weren't all so pathetic, you wouldn't have to make up an entire life's story about me to protect your feelings.
Yes? Once you're carrying a fetus, you can decide on the abortion in the first few months. God damnit, you're dumb.
If you're a woman. But not if you're a man. Equal playing field! God damnit, you're retarded.
Oh wait, so for all of recorded history, it was OK to draft just men - but when "guns" were introduced, it became wrong? So you're seething about basically every war for the past 150 or so years? Here I was thinking you were just mad on the internet. You're mad in real life too!
It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now. As long as physical fitness tests are plausible, which is always, the only reason not to draft women is if you think protecting them is more valuable than protecting men. But tell me more about your pointy stick strategies.
Why didn't Scipio recruit them?
Stop picking and choosing what parts of extinct civilizations you want to apply to today based on whether they agree with you or not.
Your life is worthless. But not because you are male. Because you're a goddamn idiot, a self-pitying seeting loser, who thankfully will be a genetic dead end.
Once again rational thought fails you and you project so hard passing airline pilots are blinded by the light. Also, tell me more how mad I am.
Since always, because that which has withstood the test of time is superior to what you made up five minutes ago. And look at the results of ignoring the past.
So you genuinely think that anything that was good for a while is good for forever, you continue to impress.
You couldn't produce anything, and every one of your supposed points was completely demolished. So phonily declaring victory was all that was left to you.
Simp more, simp. Maybe if a woman sees you protecting her virtue with other men's lives, she'll touch you.
"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.
Looks like you finally discovered the concept of a 'subset'. You could have done so earlier if you hadn't dropped out in middle school.
You're amazingly mad on the internet.
No, you dimwit extraordinaire, alimony makes sense when one marriage partner takes care of the home and the children, forgoing wages, work experience, etc. - leaving that one worse off in case of a divorce, while the benefits accrue to the household as a whole.
That is why alimony is appropriate. 'Course, you can't think beyond "WOMENZ BAD", so you rave like the lunatic you are.
Just what we need: fewer men taking care of their children, so your fat ass can wholly be without responsibilities (not that you are able to get a girl to begin with, so you claim to 'go your own way').
Yes? Once you're carrying a fetus, you can decide on the abortion in the first few months. God damnit, you're dumb.
That's quite an attempt to divert from the fact that you were too dumb to recognize a relevant quote.
Oh wait, so for all of recorded history, it was OK to draft just men - but when "guns" were introduced, it became wrong? So you're seething about basically every war for the past 150 or so years? Here I was thinking you were just mad on the internet. You're mad in real life too!
Great.
Why didn't Scipio recruit them?
Your life is worthless. But not because you are male. Because you're a goddamn idiot, a self-pitying seeting loser, who thankfully will be a genetic dead end.
Since always, because that which has withstood the test of time is superior to what you made up five minutes ago. And look at the results of ignoring the past.
You couldn't produce anything, and every one of your supposed points was completely demolished. So phonily declaring victory was all that was left to you.
I discovered the concept of assuming that what you say is what you mean. I'm sorry that quoting things you said is inconvenient when you want to hide how much of a simp you are.
NO U
So one side provides services which are simultaneously so valuable they add up to half the value of the marriage, while also so valueless they are completely worthless in the job market, and also even when the woman stops providing any of those services, the man still has to pay her. Yeah, that makes sense. Simp harder.
See, that's the difference between you and me, I only have to quote what you actually say to make you look like a moron, you have to make shit up and strawman me.
If your arguments weren't all so pathetic, you wouldn't have to make up an entire life's story about me to protect your feelings.
If you're a woman. But not if you're a man. Equal playing field! God damnit, you're retarded.
It was wrong then, and it's more wrong now. As long as physical fitness tests are plausible, which is always, the only reason not to draft women is if you think protecting them is more valuable than protecting men. But tell me more about your pointy stick strategies.
Stop picking and choosing what parts of extinct civilizations you want to apply to today based on whether they agree with you or not.
Once again rational thought fails you and you project so hard passing airline pilots are blinded by the light. Also, tell me more how mad I am.
So you genuinely think that anything that was good for a while is good for forever, you continue to impress.
Simp more, simp. Maybe if a woman sees you protecting her virtue with other men's lives, she'll touch you.