It is almost like it was predictable what might happen if Iran got access to money!

Assuming she is true to her name. Why on earth would a Majewski lend their political support to a Muslim?

I mean, at that point just buy Hamas a Starbucks pumpkin spice late.

Admit it. You just miss the steroids era.

Did you even ask her pronouns, bigot?

Or he was a poor AF writer (or something) and NYC rents are bonkers.

Leftists think that activism is more important than money. They live dirt poor so they can work harder on activism. Look at all the comic writers for the Big Two (DC and Marvel), they alternate between crowing about how they are changing the world and begging for money to pay their utilities or buy a sandwich.

Guy, we can't even convince people not to pre-order.

It is transactional. Lean into being a whore.

Cool!

Want to buy a bridge? We are going to start construction on it any day now. I'll need actual gold though. You will have plenty when your asteroid gets here.

Yeah, okay. Now show that it is a causal link to the decline of relationships and the increase of failed relationships.

Personally I think you will have a better time showing that Tinder has profoundly changed the behavior of women. I guess that makes it harder to tell men that the deserve to be alone?

Press X to doubt.

You still haven't done anything other than make nonsensical assertions.

You have no evidence that "strong relationships" remain. Divorce rate is at an all time high. Something like 70% over a 40 year marriage. Are 40 year marriages strong? Because 70% of them fail to get that far.

How can you tell that "people who would not be happy in a relationship" are no longer seeking them? Do you have a secret test or method that looks into the future to judge total possible happiness? Or is your assertion meaningless and without any kind of basis? I am thinking the second one.

So no only are you confusing correlation with causation, you are making claims for which there is no possible proof or even fucking supporting evidence!

So lets count your logical fallacies, shall we?

1. Ad hoc post ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): You conclude that Men Use Porn, therefore they Are not seeking relationships. A causal link.

2. Non sequitur (it does not follow): Strong relationships are unaffected by porn. Fucking prove it, mate.

3. Non sequitur (it does not follow): "People who would not be happy in a relationship no longer seek them." Is that an axiom? A religious belief? What possible evidence could prove or disprove this statement? It is not even wrong!

I mean, I am sympathetic that you have an untestable hypothesis as an attempt to explain social ills and the decline of committed relationships. I am just surprised at the utter confusion of thinking that has lead you to such a conclusion.

I especially like the way you casually throw all the blame for the current situation on porn-addicted men who "would not be happy in a relationship". This is a very special blend of Social Darwinism and blaming men. I mean, there is no point in addressing the situation if those guys would never be happy anyway.

Oh, and bonus points for being rude. Well done guy! If you are failing to bring any facts to a discussion, always get insulting. It will be sure to grant victory! Well done! I mean, what kind of fucker asks you to actually justify your claims with facts or logic? Am I rite?

Have a great day.

Yeah, that is a statement. It is a bold and clear statement. You still have not established a causal link between porn use and lack of relationships.

You are making two statements.

1. The Juice Isn't Worth the Squeeze.
2. Men use porn.

You then declare that easy access to porn is negatively impacting relationships.

It is a multi-factor problem. There are many distinct issues at play. You yourself have identified one of them.

Restating your original position with more emphasis won't convince me.

Calling my logic flawed is fucking nonsensical. Prove your damn point, don't insult my critique because you forgot to bring any facts.

City of Heroes is free to play now. Check out the Thunderspy server.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time is unsuitable for Console 'Tards.

I'll give you a more specific example. Bioshock spent the last months of development ripping out complex gameplay and plot to dumb it down. They received strong feedback from focus groups: "Too much talking. Why can't I run and gun?"

And too many more examples to count. I repeat:

Console 'Tards: Vomiting stupid on videogames since 2001.

To be more specific, your example is correlation not causation. The classical logical fallacy of Non Sequitur: It does not follow.

Do men use porn and then not pursue relationships? Or do men not pursue relationships and then use porn?

Would you be more comfortable with the example: "Wet streets cause rain"?

Are you going to tell me that nicotine patches cause smoking?

Well, perhaps the way you do it?

I run a tabletop RPG over webcam. It doesn't cost anything. I don't even buy D&D books because that has sucked for more than a decade.

I am a patient gamer and my hardware is about six years old. I play older games and I get them on sale after all the hype has does down. This means I only play the good games.

I am into rebuilding motorbikes and I like RC racing, but I do those on a very limited budget.

So I ges you can go all hyper-consumer. If you want?

That isn't nerdy though, it is just stupid.

Whole genres of games are omitted! RTS! Flight Sim! Turn based anything!

The Radial menu was invented because controllers are shit at selecting anything!

Console 'Tards: Vomiting stupid on videogames since 2001.

What makes you think that the Nazis didn't keep records of the executions?

You mean Australian Aboriginals who literally killed women who had sex with the wrong man?

That told stories about how lovers who want to be together bring doom to their entire family and are punished for it?

That still practice selling little girls to older men as "infant betrothal"?

I mean, they are literal communists who don't believe in personal property? So that is pretty feminist? Kinda?

Note the prominent socialist imagery of the raised fist.

South Africa fell to immigrants specifically because the were not willing to use Military force to defend their borders from immigrants. The response of a two tiered citizenship was always doomed to failure.

That DV statistic is under-reported.

Now do the levels of aboriginal sexual abuse?

Which pisses you off more: That you can't shut up Imp? Or that he consistently continues to be proven right?

Amazing what happens when we listen to points rather than people. Who knew?

Want a bamboo shoot?