You are very right. I am well aware that women must have things forced upon them. I just hesitate to speak the truth about women on KIA2 because that's a quick way to get banned.
Shaming is only one tactic but it's not the most effective. Short of literal physical force, the most effective form of compulsion is financial leverage. One of the main causes for the relationship issues we're seeing today is the social push to make women 50/50 with men in earning power. This removed the financial leverage men used to have over women to force women into having realistic standards because women were forced to sacrifice their unrealistic standards to settle for money. Now, women have money and unrealistic standards and unironically, women have never been more unhappy.
Now, an egalitarian might suggest it's unfair to stop a woman from earning income if she deserves it based on the quality of her labor. Even if that were true, the problem in modernity is that our society unfairly gives too many resources to women despite her inferiority by taking from men and giving to women in order to promote a false ideal of equality. If we simply allocated resources truly based on nothing but merit, men would have significantly more resources than women and men would have a natural position of financial leverage over women to correct for many of the relationship problems that exist today. Abolish child support, abolish alimony, make resource distribution in separations default to what you bring in you get out, no 50/50. Then remove all social programs in society, cut taxes down to the bare minimum to support a defensive military and that's it. Allow for discrimination based on sex/gender (remove any human right suggesting this isn't allowed). Under such a system, women would be forced to reduce their expectations with men because women would be desperate for resources from men because under such a system men would have significantly more resources than women. The only reason women have so many resources isn't because women earn them, it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
You are correct in every point you have just laid out. The problem is how the hell do we implement such policies? That's the part that leaves me scratching my head.
Make the person unwilling to improve be a pariah. Women in general are social and hate being ignored. Either they will improve to the standard of social norm or be casted out for ignoring it. I bet even without concerning genders, this tactic will work beautifully because a lot of people want attention. Also give incentive to the people that will work themselves out to be according to their respective genders.
I think making a pariah out of whores, false accuser and troublemakers will probably do a trick. But to even implement what I'm suggesting, jews that implement the degenerate trends and norms need to go. Making a pariah isn't even a new thing, Japan has unspoken rule of following the basic social etiquette that's why people in general don't fall out of line. At least they are used to, now i'm not sure what's going on with Japan after they are failing to do anything about Johnny Somali guy.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
Race thinks that "the truth" is that, in his own words, "women are worthless and only fit to be sex slaves to men".
So I'm not exactly surprised that he cannot find a woman, despite thinking that he is in the top 0.35% of men. His bad attitude would be sufficient to vitiate it and more, even if true.
it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Child support is one of the biggest travesties of the modern era. On paper, it sounds like a good idea. Children should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their parents. The problem however, is that we don't live on paper, we live in the real world. In the real world, child support checks are made out to the mother, not the child. The money is not given the slightest bit of oversight in how it is spent, and as long as the child isn't a starving malnourished vegetable, the state doesn't care. The amount of money is also technically unlimited because it depends on the other spouse's salary, which is almost always a man.
This amount almost never goes down, but can easily go up should the mother want it to. See the case of Dave Foley, who lost his TV gig as a comedian. Because his child support payments were calculated around the salary he was commanding as a TV presenter, he was paying something like $10k Canadian per month. This was not sustainable for him, obviously, and he went to court multiple times to attempt to lower it, being unsuccessful in his attempt, and racking up lawyer fees. It got so bad that he had to flee Canada to the United States because he would have been locked up in prison for failure to pay child support, the modern debtors prison. His ex wife had moved and taken the children somewhere he could not find them, and he hasn't seen them since.
The amount of men who have killed themselves because they become indentured servants to their ex wives is too damn high, and it's solely because they are men that nobody gives a shit. If women were subject to even half the treatment that men are in the court system it would be considered a nationwide crisis.
Are there statistics on that? This is not a gotcha.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
You are very right. I am well aware that women must have things forced upon them. I just hesitate to speak the truth about women on KIA2 because that's a quick way to get banned.
Shaming is only one tactic but it's not the most effective. Short of literal physical force, the most effective form of compulsion is financial leverage. One of the main causes for the relationship issues we're seeing today is the social push to make women 50/50 with men in earning power. This removed the financial leverage men used to have over women to force women into having realistic standards because women were forced to sacrifice their unrealistic standards to settle for money. Now, women have money and unrealistic standards and unironically, women have never been more unhappy.
Now, an egalitarian might suggest it's unfair to stop a woman from earning income if she deserves it based on the quality of her labor. Even if that were true, the problem in modernity is that our society unfairly gives too many resources to women despite her inferiority by taking from men and giving to women in order to promote a false ideal of equality. If we simply allocated resources truly based on nothing but merit, men would have significantly more resources than women and men would have a natural position of financial leverage over women to correct for many of the relationship problems that exist today. Abolish child support, abolish alimony, make resource distribution in separations default to what you bring in you get out, no 50/50. Then remove all social programs in society, cut taxes down to the bare minimum to support a defensive military and that's it. Allow for discrimination based on sex/gender (remove any human right suggesting this isn't allowed). Under such a system, women would be forced to reduce their expectations with men because women would be desperate for resources from men because under such a system men would have significantly more resources than women. The only reason women have so many resources isn't because women earn them, it's because the government takes them from men to give to women and this inequity is one of the major reasons why things are so bad today.
Speaking the truth is fine, it's being a sperg that gets Imp banned.
You are correct in every point you have just laid out. The problem is how the hell do we implement such policies? That's the part that leaves me scratching my head.
Make the person unwilling to improve be a pariah. Women in general are social and hate being ignored. Either they will improve to the standard of social norm or be casted out for ignoring it. I bet even without concerning genders, this tactic will work beautifully because a lot of people want attention. Also give incentive to the people that will work themselves out to be according to their respective genders.
I think making a pariah out of whores, false accuser and troublemakers will probably do a trick. But to even implement what I'm suggesting, jews that implement the degenerate trends and norms need to go. Making a pariah isn't even a new thing, Japan has unspoken rule of following the basic social etiquette that's why people in general don't fall out of line. At least they are used to, now i'm not sure what's going on with Japan after they are failing to do anything about Johnny Somali guy.
Race thinks that "the truth" is that, in his own words, "women are worthless and only fit to be sex slaves to men".
So I'm not exactly surprised that he cannot find a woman, despite thinking that he is in the top 0.35% of men. His bad attitude would be sufficient to vitiate it and more, even if true.
Child support is one of the biggest travesties of the modern era. On paper, it sounds like a good idea. Children should not be made to suffer because of the actions of their parents. The problem however, is that we don't live on paper, we live in the real world. In the real world, child support checks are made out to the mother, not the child. The money is not given the slightest bit of oversight in how it is spent, and as long as the child isn't a starving malnourished vegetable, the state doesn't care. The amount of money is also technically unlimited because it depends on the other spouse's salary, which is almost always a man.
This amount almost never goes down, but can easily go up should the mother want it to. See the case of Dave Foley, who lost his TV gig as a comedian. Because his child support payments were calculated around the salary he was commanding as a TV presenter, he was paying something like $10k Canadian per month. This was not sustainable for him, obviously, and he went to court multiple times to attempt to lower it, being unsuccessful in his attempt, and racking up lawyer fees. It got so bad that he had to flee Canada to the United States because he would have been locked up in prison for failure to pay child support, the modern debtors prison. His ex wife had moved and taken the children somewhere he could not find them, and he hasn't seen them since.
The amount of men who have killed themselves because they become indentured servants to their ex wives is too damn high, and it's solely because they are men that nobody gives a shit. If women were subject to even half the treatment that men are in the court system it would be considered a nationwide crisis.
Are there statistics on that? This is not a gotcha.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron.
Just to be clear, you make an empirical claim and have absolutely nothing to back it up with?
Good to know, thanks for the reply making it clear.