I agree in theory it's possible kind of like how in theory communism works perfectly. Problem is it denies human nature. As you admit in the conclusion the parameters needed for it to work just won't ever happen in reality; therefore, it's not actually possible outside of "theory" and shouldn't be the focus of anyone's ideas for how best to adapt to reality.

Best to presume all women are evil and work from that presumption.

How to define evil? Opposite of good. All good people instinctively know what good is. Defining it is pointless. If you want to define evil then define woman's nature and there you have it.

If you want a definition for fun because my answer isn't good enough then I'll just use Aristotle's quote here: "Let us assume good to be whatever is desirable for its own sake, or for the sake of which we choose something else; that which is the aim of all things, or of all things that possess sensation or reason; or would be, if they could acquire the latter. Whatever reason might assign to each and whatever reason does not assign to each in individual cases, that is good for each; and that whose presence makes a man fit and also independent; and independence in general; and that which produces or preserves such things, or on which such things follow, or all that is likely to prevent or destroy their opposites."

Have fun with that one but basically women are evil because women actually hinder men from obtaining that which is good.

I agree in theory it's possible kind of like how in theory communism works perfectly. Problem is it denies human nature. As you admit in the conclusion the parameters needed for it to work just won't ever happen in reality; therefore, it's not actually possible outside of "theory" and shouldn't be the focus of anyone's ideas for how best to adapt to reality.

Best to presume all women are evil and work from that presumption.

How to define evil? Opposite of good. All good people instinctively know what good is. Defining it is pointless. If you want to define evil then define woman's nature and there you have it.

If you want a definition for fun because my answer isn't good enough then I'll just use Aristotle's quote here: "Let us assume good to be whatever is desirable for its own sake, or for the sake of which we choose something else; that which is the aim of all things, or of all things that possess sensation or reason; or would be, if they could acquire the latter. Whatever reason might assign to each and whatever reason does not assign to each in individual cases, that is good for each; and that whose presence makes a man fit and also independent; and independence in general; and that which produces or preserves such things, or on which such things follow, or all that is likely to prevent or destroy their opposites."

Have fun with that one but basically women are evil because women actually prevent men from obtaining that which is good.

I agree in theory it's possible kind of like how in theory communism works perfectly. Problem is it denies human nature. As you admit in the conclusion the parameters needed for it to work just won't ever happen in reality; therefore, it's not actually possible outside of "theory" and shouldn't be the focus of anyone's ideas for how best to adapt to reality.

Best to presume all women are evil and work from that presumption.

How to define evil? Opposite of good. All good people instinctively know what good is. Defining it is pointless. If you want to define evil then define woman's nature and there you have it.