If you're not exclusively dating people you plan on marrying what is the point of dating?
I don't get it
what the hell is going on?

>>82088378 (OP)
>if you're not exclusively using the internet to purchase an expensive house, what's the point of the internet?

>>82088378 (OP)
dating is a way for men to have low effort and constant sex while for women it is a way for them to have access to free resources

>>82088399
>>82088403
i guess i understand dating to share the burden of survival, but wouldn't it make sense to do that with someone you'd like to marry, why date someone you wouldn't see yourself marrying.

personally i don't like the idea of marriage, but i think you should choose a partner that you'd marry.

i saw a post of a woman making fun of a guy for dating to marry and it made me wonder why else would you date someone, i don't get it.

what the hell is going on?

>>82088399
That's not really the purpose of the Internet though. It's to exchange information with other people, which is what we're doing.

>>82088459
men don't care about marriage, they just want sex.

>>82088463
the purpose of dating is to exchange body fluids

>>82088495
Aaaand my dick is hard. Great.

>>82088495
No, the main purpose of dating would be to find a life partner. But people do use it just to find people to have sex with

>>82088378 (OP)
>why are people enjoying things I don't enjoy!!!
>stop enjoying things I don't enjoy!!!
You have autism. Don't breed.

i think you alrady know, trucel...

HHNHM

>>82088523
That's not at all what he said. He just wants to understand why you're doing something that doesn't make sense.

How to make trucel famous

>>82088505
a life partner doesn't mean anything. it works better in most cases to raise your children together, but humans evolved through strength in numbers and communities, not "life partner"

>>82088477
Marriage was about regularly having sex since ancient times. It was also specifically a safer way to have sex. Women stopped offering it and predictably abused no fault divorce so marriage now has no real point.

>>82088569
We all know what he really meant. This is christcuck agitprop posting. If he's actually clueless and not a motivated actor, then the answer is that people do things they enjoy and not everyone enjoys the same thing. He's still autistic.

x hat x

>>82088588
Having one sexual partner doesn't mean you can't join communities. What a retarded thing to say

>>82088625
nobody said anything about no joining communities, are you retarded? you date people that you are currently having sex with, what is so complicated for you?

>>82088604
People aren't just doing things they enjoy or being fully honest about what they're doing though. The enjoyment of sex how people do it has lasting consequences that only wouldn't matter if they were fully accepting of not having a serious relationship.

>>82088641
Why are you pretending casual sex and this type of dating hasn't been destructive?

>>82088658
>blah blah blah
Revealed vs stated preferences mate. People do the things they want to do. Your disgusting paternalism of "oh no they don't understand the harms" is just retarded trash. Let people do the things they want. I refer you back to
>why are people enjoying things I don't enjoy!!!
>stop enjoying things I don't enjoy!!!
Please sterilize yourself.

>>82088658
the sex they have is serious enough.

OP here
i was just thinking, i don't really want to get married, but the average woman, like 80% of them want to eventually get married, it's a tradition that they want to partake in at some point which i find useless.

that led me to wonder if i should even be dating if i don't plan on getting married. sex with hookers can replace random hookups, i guess hooking up is cheaper, but if you're spending 100 on a date that's 20 extra dollars you could have saved fucking a hooker.

i feel like we're gonna get to a future where most people will opt to not get married and dating will also stop being a thing and normies will just be having casual sex and occasionally forming short lived relationships. i feel like that's the future chads desire, a world where the whole city is their harem and there are no commitments, just a bunch of chads juggling all the women while everyone else dies starved of pussy.

what a sad state of affairs.

>>82088685
Them wanting to do things doesn't change the harm it does to themselves and others. They say they want to do it but they complain about the consequences of doing it as if it's not expected. Why do something while pretending it only involves the good part?

>>82088681
nobody said anything about casual sex. you just randomly brought it up now. are you just retarded? porn is destructive, i agree with that, but dating someone, like anything else, can be its own plan without having to be part of some bigger 50-year plan. if you're saying that people wait too long to get married or don't plan far enough ahead, that's a personal issue. that has absolutely nothing to do with dating or marriage in principle.

>>82088687
It's not that serious when it doesn't last

>>82088733
>can be its own plan without having to be part of some bigger 50-year plan
This just makes it sound like you don't know what you're doing and shouldn't be taken seriously.

>>82088378 (OP)
i never got this either. what is the point of dating if not testing the waters to find a partner? what is a relationship if not beginning your life with who you consider your future partner?? casual dating has just never made sense to me because what is casual about either of those things??? it is a big deal i do not want to waste my time with someone i am not going to marry

>>82088714
>OP here
>i am trans, thank you for listening to my ted talk
>i am very smart
That's great and all, but you could have started dating at literally any time. Wasting your youth and projecting it on cucksiety is not a flex. You're the one left with the sad state of affairs after all, and no girlfriend.

>>82088714
You can date without being serious, you can even have a long term relationship without intending to be together forever. Or you do an FWB type thing. Your weird slippery slope is not going to happen because it's unrealistic and retarded.
>>82088722
>the harm it does to themselves and others
>oh no don't do that it harmful u getting hurt
Nanny state retard, who cares? If people want to jump off bridges let them.
>They say they want to do it but they complain about the consequences of doing it as if it's not expected
Who cares? Again, stated vs revealed preferences. People complain about everything, it doesn't mean anything.
>Why do something while pretending it only involves the good part?
Why do anything? Let people do what they want. Who gives a shit? Why do you hate freedom?

just for the feels

>>82088733
Dating and the fucking that goes with it is casual or temporary. And fucking various people before an actual serious relationship means you offer less to that person especially as a woman because they handle sex worse.

>>82088772
>even have a long term relationship without intending to be together forever
Genuinely what the fuck is wrong with people? You make dating sound terrifying

>>82088755
If you know what you're doing as a teenager then you will easily become a billionaire. Not everyone needs to be like Elon Musk to still have an enjoyable and fulfilling life.

>>82088789
There's this thing called communication and you usually do it with your partner. You should try it, it really helps to keep people on the same page.

>>82088772
>>82088768
i'm telling you casual dating will evolve into socially accepted occasional hookups with chads and everyone else will be pussyless.
mark my words, the great pussy drought is the inevitable evolution of the current dating scene.

>>82088784
life is temporary you schizo. the point of marriage is to have children, and the point of chastity is to limit population growth, especially to prevent teen pregnancies. if both of these concepts are not a problem for the individual, then quite LITERALLY it does not matter. a "serious relationship" in the traditional sense is that you get married between 18-22. if you're 25 and still "waiting" you are not a serious person either, just a cuckold. why don't you mention that in your little blog?

>>82088772
By the same logic why do you even care to respond to OP? Besides feeling like it these methods of harming themselves and others inevitably effects me and anyone living around them. Especially if they have kids they can't take care of from fucking around casually. If the complaining and consequences of their lifestyle didn't matter they wouldn't complain or be measurably more worse off than necessary.

>>82088826
>muh pussy
>muh boy pussy
>muh anal beads on dildomaxx
Let me guess, are you still single in 2025?

>>82088826
Take your pills autist

>>82088810
>called communication
So you're meeting someone and immediately telling them something like "I only plan on being with you for a year and then I'm breaking up with you"?

>>82088855
When you went to school did the principal tell you "hey i plan on teaching you forever"

>>82088847
>why do you even care to respond to OP?
Because defending freedom is necessary to keeping freedom
>Besides feeling like it these methods of harming themselves and others inevitably effects me and anyone living around them
It doesn't
>Especially if they have kids they can't take care of from fucking around casually
Not your problem
>If the complaining and consequences of their lifestyle didn't matter they wouldn't complain or be measurably more worse off than necessary
Even if their lifestyle is strictly inferior to your proposed christcuck nanny shit state, who cares? Let people suffer if they choose to suffer. It's their choice. The freedom to suffer is still an important freedom.
>>82088855
Are you actually autistic? People in relationships constantly communicate about future plans. I typically open with "I don't want long term" and people self select off of that. What kind of relationship are you thinking of where long term planning is never spoken of? Jesus fucking christ this board sometimes lmao.

>>82088870
What? Principals don't even teach and I don't think that's really comparable to a romantic or sexual relationship. That would also mean you're not communicating this information at all.

>>82088894
>Are you actually autistic?
Probably. I can't afford to get diagnosed though so I'm stuck trying to be normal.
>typically open with "I don't want long term"
And that's before what? Aren't you already dating at that point? So the other person might have different expectations going in?

>>82088897
>its not comparable
so you weren't committed to your education? you didn't take your education seriously?

>>82088939
Dude I genuinely do not understand this analogy at all. You sound schizophrenic.

>>82088378 (OP)
Its a sham to waste both people's time and gain profit off marriages and court dates and putting rats on a treadmill to just 'try harder'
The very idea of going on multiple dates with multiple people is anathema to the concept of love, which is basically one person forever from beginning to end.

We used to have families just veto their children and say "my son/daughter isn't a piece of shit" to each other, introduce them, and they made it work or just didn't hit it off at all - no dating required.

>>82088951
Some retarded anon from earlier claimed that a relationship is only serious if your plan is to make a life commitment out of it.

>>82088965
>relationship is only serious if your plan is to make a life commitment out of it.
That makes sense. Anything else is just wasting your time.

>>82088924
>Probably
Well, my apologies then. I understand now that this isn't really your fault for not understanding.
>And that's before what? Aren't you already dating at that point? So the other person might have different expectations going in?
Most dating starts online these days so there's nothing before that, you put it in your profile or wherever. Even in person you date a week or two, get to know each other, formalize the relationship and discuss expectations a little. That's when you typically say "I don't want kids" or "I want an open relationship" or whatever dealbreaker shit you have going on. Losing a week or two of time isn't going to kill anyone. It's completely bad manners to date for a long time and then spring something like that on your partner, people still do it but usually we call them sociopaths and no one really likes them.

>>82088831
Life being temporary doesn't mean lifelong relationships aren't still a thing or change that fucking multiple people is wrong bitch

>>82088977
Yeah so education can't be serious either unless you plan to stay at that school forever.

>>82088894
You have the freedom to do it but at the end of the day you're just defending the freedom to be a trashy low quality human. If it's who cares then stop replying. But you won't

>>82088987
Lifelong relationships aren't still a thing, unless you have a duty to your children together. Without kids or an immediate plan for kids, the only reason you'd stay together is for convenience. If it becomes inconvenient, it's not really a relationship anymore. The "temporary" argument is meaningless. People don't start to date because they are thinking how they will spend their time at age 85, and even if they were that age 85 lifestyle will still be temporary.

>>82088378 (OP)
dating is just an act people use to allow them to have judgemental free sex. "girlfriend/boyfriend" sounds more acceptable than "fuck buddy/ bootycall"

>>82089002
>guy on 4chan judging someone for being trashy
Oof

>>82089002
>you're just defending the freedom to be a trashy low quality human
Yes exactly. Everyone must be free to be a trashy low quality human. Any attempt to abrogate that freedom is tyrannical and should be resisted. We can't be free if we're only free to be good upstanding people.
>If it's who cares then stop replying. But you won't
I care a lot about freedom. Why would I stop defending it? You freaks want to push us all into a box and make us all good little christcucks. It's disgusting and I will always argue against it.

>>82088983
>my apologies then. I understand now that this isn't really your fault for not understanding.
All good, I know I'm kind of retarded.
>Most dating starts online these days so there's nothing before that
I'm an ugly man so I don't think I'll be meeting anyone online if I meet anyone at all. So that's out.
>in person you date a week or two, get to know each other, formalize the relationship and discuss expectations a little
I guess I can get that but it still seems weird to me that I could be taking someone out on date and getting to know them and they have completely different expectations. I would think if you're going out on a date, you're looking for a long term commitment. Just seems kind of brutal. At least for me, considering the monumental effort it would be to get a date in the first place.

>>82089099
why would it take any effort to get a date if you're the type of person who plans ahead?

>>82088987
>>82089009
They are still a thing they're just either extremely rare or people lie about offering it. People don't think much about what they do in general so them doing that for dating changes none of what I said
>>82089017
Cope
>>82089025
You're free to do it just stop acting like your way is best or you're free from criticism. The fact you're acting like I'm grounding you for pointing out your choices are shit is just pathetic.

>>82089133
Because I'm ugly and autistic? I get along with a couple women at work and I had one LDR but women generally don't like.

>>82089099
>I'm an ugly man so I don't think I'll be meeting anyone online if I meet anyone at all. So that's out.
I know lots of women that got with ugly men online, I think dating apps make it harder but you can meet women on social media and stuff.
>I could be taking someone out on date and getting to know them and they have completely different expectations
Yeah, and not even just about the duration of the relationship. Maybe she wants to be a stay-at-home mom and you want her to work, or vice versa. Maybe she wants to travel and you don't. Maybe she wants to live near her family and you want to move far away. There are lots of dealbreakers that you can't communicate on a first date. It takes a long time to get to know someone well enough to be able to commit. Frankly even if you both are certain you want long term, there are so many other factors that it almost doesn't matter. Plus, people change their minds all the time on stuff. Maybe she wants short term and you want long term, but she dates you a few months and decides she does want long term (with you specifically), or maybe she wants long term but just doesn't feel that you're the right person for that. You can't predict what one date will result in, maybe a few months in or a year in you can get a good feel for it though.

>>82089143
>The fact you're acting like I'm grounding you for pointing out your choices are shit is just pathetic
You freaks want to ban "bad" behavior. That's what I'm arguing about. You can spout your nonsense all you want, that's your right, but it's my right to attack your shit opinions. People want to have fun and it's fun to fuck around.

>>82089184
I never talked about banning anything you projecting schizophrenic failure of a creature. Prioritizing fun that lasts a short time and leaves you worse off for a long time isn't a good opinion it just shows how fucking dumb you are.

>>82089151
being autistic doesn't mean you can't plan ahead. why do you think so? just create a simple plan and commit to it.

It's fun to fuck around until you get hpv aids cancer and want a serious relationship but can't stop thinking about other people. It's fun until you're a single mom or need an abortion. It's fun until you get jealous.

>>82089219
Christcuck retards all want to ban things and your moralization of the "problem" is indicative of you being more in favor than not of doing so. You're a moralistic paternalistic control freak.
>Prioritizing fun that lasts a short time and leaves you worse off for a long time isn't a good opinion
Freedom is more important than muh good opinions or muh good outcomes

>>82089159
Yeah man, I just don't think I got it in me to really deal with all that. It's too much effort for it all to turn to nothing and have to start completely over. I do not understand women at all. I'm just going to count my blessings that I'm not a virgin and call it quits. I'm out.

>>82089224
>just create a simple plan
I can make a plan but it would still require women to want to go along with it.

>>82089266
>It's too much effort
Dating is fun though. You get act cutesy and romantic and learn about another person.

>>82089264
Retard you're just wrong and can't handle it. You're wrong about how to live and you lied about me wanting to ban shit in an attempt to sound less retarded. Being free doesn't mean acting like trash without consequences. You have your freedom, you just waste it.

>>82089290
>You get act cutesy and romantic and learn about another person
I think you get to do that. I have to not act like a sperg and try to impress the woman so she doesn't lose interest in me.

>>82089301
>Retard you're just wrong and can't handle it
I am fully correct. Freedom is the most important thing and even if someone's choices make them suffer their freedom to do so must always be defended.
>you're wrong about something subjective
lol retard
>Being free doesn't mean acting like trash without consequences
Besides the natural consequences of slutting it up like pregnancy or stds, what consequences are you talking about?
>You have your freedom
I don't. The tyrannical society we live in denies us basic freedoms like bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, and increasingly freedom of speech. The government must not prevent any consensual actions between any adults if we are to have actual freedom.

>>82088378 (OP)
you're meant to date various people until you find a good match, somebody who you're compatible with. you can't expect to happily live out the rest of your life with the first random woman you meet

>>82089323
I'm a sperg too though. You just have to find women that like spergs. Dating isn't going to be fun if you have to hide who you are the whole time. Plus, what are you going to do if you get married? Pretend not be a sperg for the rest of your life?

>>82089280
Oh that's so curious. So why waste your time doing anything at all if your "plan" requires some uncertainty?

>>82088378 (OP)
>people you plan on marrying
how do you plan to meet people without dating them and getting to know them first?

>>82089341
You're not fully correct because you lied about me trying to ban anything. You're so fucking retarded you think freedom is just choosing to clearly fail at life and ruin your body. Single moms, attachment to exes when you have a partner, and stds are bad positions for most sane people. It's subjective if you're a cuck or masochist. The irony of you crying about freedom is you encourage people to do things that will have their freedom getting limited as a consequence.

>>82089398
When was the last time you tried to date a single mom so that her position would get better?

>>82089398
>You're not fully correct because you lied about me trying to ban anything
I'm fully convinced you would ban things if you could
>You're so fucking retarded you think freedom is just choosing to clearly fail at life and ruin your body
You must have the freedom to do retarded things just as you must have the freedom to do smart things. Who is to say what is retarded and what is smart? Not the government, that's for sure. Everyone should choose their own path, I defend the retarded things because people often don't want to defend those.
>Single moms, attachment to exes when you have a partner, and stds are bad positions for most sane people
Bad? Sure. Personal choice? Yes. Necessary for freedom? Absolutely.
>The irony of you crying about freedom is you encourage people to do things
I'm not encouraging it, I'm defending it
>that will have their freedom getting limited as a consequence
As long as it's not the government abrogating the freedom it's fine. If a woman gets pregnant and becomes a single mother, that was her choice ultimately. If her freedom is limited because of her child and economic position, that's completely fine. It's a natural consequence as opposed to an unnatural (governmental) one.

You just hate freedom because it scares you.

>>82089356
>find women that like spergs
Do those exist? Didn't really get any interest from women(woman) until I started masking. But I guess it's true that that didn't really last.
>Dating isn't going to be fun if you have to hide who you are the whole time
I guess so but it doesn't really seem like fun to me to begin with. Just seems like a job interview if you're a man.

>>82089357
>why waste your time doing anything at all if your "plan" requires some uncertainty
Well, it depends on the percentage chance of success. There's a huge difference between a 10% chance of success and a 90% chance of success. It's just like gambling at a casino. If I know the odds are stacked against me, I don't know why I'd bother.

If you fuck around and catch diseases, get stuck on one or multiple exes or have kids you don't want your freedom and what you can offer your future partners or kids is now limited to worse options. STDs can be passed to kids and just one of the most ones can be painful and ruin your every day life while you probably already have various health problems. This is before you even get older and your body starts failing. If you had sexual experiences with other people and or miss them you're not offering the same passion you otherwise could have to your current partner.

>>82089464
>Do those exist?
Yeah for sure, they're usually kind of spergy too. They're not super common though.
>I guess so but it doesn't really seem like fun to me to begin with
Do you really want to be in a relationship even? It's ok to be single if you don't like dating.

>>82089496
>humans are born with a set amount of passion
>if they use it all up it's gone
lol

>>82089513
>Do you really want to be in a relationship even? It's ok to be single if you don't like dating.
Yeah, I really enjoyed the one relationship I was in but it all felt so natural and real. Everything just flowed. Dating just seems so fake and artificial to me, I guess. You're a man, right? Dating doesn't feel like a job interview to you?

>>82089436
Why would I date a single mom?
>>82089439
You were already convinced before I even got here you dumb bitch. Having the freedom to do retarded things doesn't mean you should. This isn't about freedom it's about you encouraging people to be worse to live around or have relationships with like it's the best option or use of freedom.

>>82088955
>>82089016
both of these desu

>>82089524
>Experiencing something you've done many times is as intense as experiencing it the first time
>If you miss and fantasize about your ex you're offering something just as good to your current partner as if you weren't
Ok retard

>>82089537
>This isn't about freedom it's about you encouraging people to be worse to live around or have relationships with like it's the best option or use of freedom.
When did I do that? Hint: Never. Retard, learn to read.

>>82089484
you should just stay single and also pretend like you know anything about serious relationships, lol

>>82089592
Encouraging people to fuck around in the name of "freedom" is doing just that you dumb faggot

>>82089598
I mean, I was in a serious relationship once. So I know a little bit. I don't really understand relationships as a whole though, I guess. I don't really get why people act the way they do.

>>82089605
When did I encourage it? I said it was their right and I defended their freedom to do so. I never said it was the best option available to them. You're the retard who thinks freedom to do something equals requirement to do it or that defending an action means endorsing it. I'll defend your ability to spout retarded drivel online all day everyday even if I wish you would castrate yourself to prevent your wretched genes from spreading.

>>82089642
You're constantly defending it as the right thing to do because it's fun and acting like I'm trying to take their freedom away for pointing it's a bad move. Fucking idiot

>>82089656
You have zero reading comprehension, huh? I said THEY find it fun. I said stated vs revealed preferences. They have a preference toward fucking around vs settling down. You christcucks do want to take that freedom away.

>I'm not encouraging people fucking around I'm just supporting it by defending it cus it feel good n sheeit
Fucking idiot

>>82089698
I think people should have the right to amputate their own limbs as well, are you under the impression that I have amputated mine and am encouraging others to do the same? Retard. What is it with zoomies and not understanding anything outside of black and white morality. Your brains are mush.

>>82089687
If you're repeatedly saying "let them do it cus it feel good and don't matter anyway" you are supporting or encouraging it retard. And you keep coping over religion and having it banned when it wasn't said. Fucking idiot

>>82089723
Yeah you would argue it doesn't matter go ahead and do it because muh freedom and christcucks and gubmint. You're pretending it's a valid option because you're mentally ill.

>>82089732
>you are supporting
Their freedom to do so yes. I say it doesn't matter because it doesn't, it's their choice! It doesn't matter if they elect to remove all their limbs and starve to death in their own homes either because it's their choice to do so! It doesn't affect you or me or society at large. No matter how much you want to ban it I will continue to fight against your horrible opinion while still defending your right to have said opinion.

>>82089751
All options are equally valid. It's personal choice. Who are you to say that someone can't do something consensual?
>mentally ill
We're on r9k retard that's a given. So are you.

>>82089756
>>82089770
It does matter because the consequences will leave them worse off. The fact you brought up that you would support completely pointless limb removal too, despite it ironically limiting freedom so much, shows how defective you are as a creature. There's a big difference between crying about women and supporting and encouraging even limb removal because muh freedom.

>>82089817
>will leave them worse off
So what? That's the natural consequence of their choices. Should we rail against all bad choices? You're posting on 4chan, that's a bad choice that will leave you worse off.
>despite it ironically limiting freedom so much
Natural consequences don't limit freedom. Only exogenous sources can limit freedom: the government, other humans, etc. If someone chooses to lose their legs, they are maximizing their own freedom.
>supporting and encouraging even limb removal because muh freedom
How can we have freedom if we can't do what we want with our own bodies?
>encouraging
How mushy mush is this zoomies brain? I never encouraged it dumbshit, I said it's a fundamental freedom that must be granted to all people. I would never do it and I would advise against it. But the handful of people who desperately want to do so should be allowed to do so.

>go ahead cut all your limbs off because it doesn't matter
We got two of three here saying you do encourage limb removal and other destructive things in the name of "freedom".

>>82089723
This is because you are retarded and lack foresight. No, people should not have freedom to do anything and everything - it effects those around you negatively. We don't live in a solo fucking island. I'm not keen on fighting off drug addicts on my walk home because they had the freedom to be degenerates. Go live in the jungle if you want true ultimate freedom, you absolute fucking idiot. Governing bodies were made for a reason, because they're bad NOW doesn't mean the whole system itself is a negative. It needs to be controlled - both the government and the people

>>82089869
Pointing out something is wrong for various obvious reasons isn't preventing them from choosing themselves you fucking idiot. And again what you encourage people doing would limit their freedom infinitely more than some dumb law or ban that doesn't even exist but you're crying about throughout the thread.

>>82089886
So supporting gay rights is the same as encouraging all men to have anal sex? That doesn't sound right to me, does it sound right to you anon?
>>82089900
>No, people should not have freedom to do anything and everything
Only consensual actions anon. You can't have the freedom to steal from other people for example since it abrogates their freedom.
>it effects those around you negatively
affects*
>I'm not keen on fighting off drug addicts on my walk home because they had the freedom to be degenerates
Presumably they're doing something non-consensual to you which should be and is illegal and they should be incarcerated for that, but not for the drug use.
>Go live in the jungle if you want true ultimate freedom
That's not "true ultimate freedom" as there's no governing body to prevent non-consensual action
>because they're bad NOW doesn't mean the whole system itself is a negative
Never said that
>>82089925
>isn't preventing them from choosing themselves you fucking idiot
You repeatedly thought "this should be banned" and I took offense to that
>limit their freedom infinitely more than some dumb law
Only exogenous consequences and actions can limit freedom
>but you're crying about throughout the thread
You seem angrier than me though lol

>>82089996
No supporting gay rights means you encourage guys being gay. But you would deny this and argue you're only supporting it. Fucking moron.
>You repeatedly thought "this should be banned"
>thought
Worthless wannabe x men schizo faggot

>>82090057
>No supporting gay rights means you encourage guys being gay
I encourage men who want to try gay things to try gay things. I do not encourage men who do not want to try gay things to try gay things. It's pretty simple broski.
>Worthless wannabe x men schizo faggot
>doesn't understand jokes

This faggot really is a reddit tier nihilist talking about supporting cutting limbs off for no reason
>>82090096
And you encourage people cutting their limbs off and limiting their freedom more than laws can

>>82090113
>This faggot really is a reddit tier nihilist
I'm not a nihilist
>supporting cutting limbs off for no reason
Wanting them removed is a reason
>And you encourage people cutting their limbs off
If they so desire it? Who am I to tell someone what not to do with their own body? I ain't god bro.
>limiting their freedom more than laws can
Exogenous something something I explained this a few times already mang

>>82089996
You really lack understanding. Lets keep the drug addict thought exercise going: In an area in Vancouver called Hastings, there are so many of them that the police can't even be assed to do anything or respond to calls. Thus, anyone who is not a drug addict is forced to move - often to areas they cannot afford. Their freedom is limited because of this now. All because we allowed druggies to be druggies.
You see how cause and effect can spread beyond just a singular? Suppose I walk through there and nobody attacks me YET. Chances are high and I need to carry a knife and likely get stabbed or have to stab someone.

Now imagine if most places became like that.
You understand even spearchucking neanderthals ended up agreeing on rules like 'you no take meat unless you hunt too', right?
Rules are what make civilization. Total freedom is a lawless jungle.

I get your point on principle, but this is why its needed to pick and choose what rules to enforce. Like I said: You lack foresight

btw even if some guy ODs in an apartment alone, his decaying body produces stink that affects (thanks for the correction) others, along with inviting vermin/bugs into the building until he is found and disposed of (done by other people as well)
Suddenly that one solitary freedom DOES affect others. That's why we have to do good, because its a societal decision to make life easier for us on a day to day basis.
There is wrong and there is right.

>>82090142
You constantly argue none of these actions or consequences matter when they do matter and much more than some gay law that doesn't even exist at this point. You cry about freedom while encouraging people to do things that limit their freedom more than me or any actual lawmaker could. Fucking loser

>>82090188
Nah braw I'm a based nihilism who doesn't rely on anybody heh

>>82090188
>there are so many of them that the police can't even be assed to do anything or respond to calls
The state shirking its duty is not an argument against freedom, it's an argument for fixing the state
>Their freedom is limited because of this now
Their freedom is limited by the government's refusal to do its most important duty
>You understand even spearchucking neanderthals ended up agreeing on rules like 'you no take meat unless you hunt too', right?
I believe they had division of labor so even non-hunters could eat, plus they cared for sick, old, and injured tribe members who couldn't contribute.
>his decaying body produces stink that affects (thanks for the correction) others, along with inviting vermin/bugs into the building until he is found and disposed of (done by other people as well)
Should we not house old people either, they tend to die randomly too. Sue his estate for damages if it's so bad.
>That's why we have to do good
Who defines good? This is the crux of the matter for me. Good is not a defined term. Good to Hitler, good to Stalin, good to the average American, and good to me are all different things. There are areas in the middle we can agree on, but only just barely. What happens when the wrong regime gets in power and decides good is something very different? Maybe you're a conservative, maybe you're a liberals; I don't know. What happens when your worst nightmare regime takes power and changes the law in the worst possible way for you? A government that has minimal power can't do that in a meaningful way, the risk of tyranny, whatever your definition of tyranny is, is minimized like that. I'm not an anarchist or anything, I believe in law enforcement and prisons, but freedom must be the guiding principle and not harm reduction or any other form of paternalism that can be turned against the people.

>>82090215
I believe in universal, non-needs tested welfare programs a la UBI.
>>82090196
>You constantly argue none of these actions or consequences matter when they do matter
To the person doing it, not to you or me.
>much more than some gay law that doesn't even exist at this point
Extreme body mods are illegal, there are attempts at banning porn, drugs are illegal, etc.
>You cry about freedom while encouraging people to do things that limit their freedom more than me or any actual lawmaker could
You can not limit your own freedom by experiencing natural consequences. Only unnatural consequences limit freedom. This is fine sometimes e.g., sending a murderer to prison limits their freedom, but their actions limit the freedom of other people more. Getting your legs amputated doesn't limit your freedom because you chose to get them removed (unless you had to because someone ran you over, in which case your freedom WAS limited by the person who ran you over). Why does freedom scare you so much?

>>82090290
Anon its not refusal: They CANNOT
Not many people want to become policemen and put their lives at risk (because it is not mandatory to become one)
I am quite literally highlighting the result of excess freedom. There is no other solution than restricting it to certain degrees or even forcing people to become police officer. And like another anon said, its all that excess freedom that caused an issue that cannot be fixed without SEVERELY limiting it.

>>82090341
>They CANNOT
Of course they can. Arrest people who are causing problems and put them in jail or rehab or whatever. That's how it has worked since forever.
>Not many people want to become policemen and put their lives at risk
Then the job isn't paying enough, markets exist for a reason.
>I am quite literally highlighting the result of excess freedom
You are highlighting state failure
>There is no other solution than restricting it to certain degrees or even forcing people to become police officer
Pay the police more if there aren't enough of them and allow them to actually arrest the problem addicts and imprison them.

>>82090331
>Extreme body mods are illegal, there are attempts at banning porn, drugs are illegal, etc.
I was talking about you accusing me of trying to ban irresponsible sex. If you encourage someone to lose their limbs just on a whim and nothing else you're not only limiting their freedom to take care of themselves in basic ways but the freedom of whoever takes care of them unless they also suicide.

>>82090412
>I was talking about you accusing me of trying to ban irresponsible sex
This also has attempted secondary bans e.g., abortion bans and restrictions on birth control
>If you encourage someone to lose their limbs just on a whim
Pray tell who has whims to do such a thing? I've never heard anyone who wanted it. Would you get your limbs removed if I said yeah go for it?
>you're not only limiting their freedom
Exogenous blah blah blah
>the freedom of whoever takes care of them
The person taking care of them is free to not take care of them though.

>>82090442
Abortion being banned is only an issue if you want killing for convenience in general to be legal.
>Pray tell
You talk like a fag and statistically some people would remove their limbs if given the option. You just argued in favor of it.
>The person taking care of them is free to not take care of them though
Only if they're a wannabe edgy sociopath loser like you otherwise they would feel guilty for letting them die.

>>82088378 (OP)
For fun and practice. It's that shrimple.

>>82090492
>Abortion being banned is only an issue if you want killing for convenience in general to be legal.
There's nothing wrong with removing a parasite from a body
>statistically some people would remove their limbs if given the option.
It's terrible that they are currently unable to do so. If they want their limbs removed for whatever reason they should be allowed to do so, who are we to tell them no? My point is that it wouldn't be a societal problem, most people like having all four limbs.
>Only if they're a wannabe edgy sociopath loser like you otherwise they would feel guilty for letting them die
So they clearly have a preference towards caring for the person vs not caring for them. What's the problem here? They're free to choose and they choose to care, that's great. I'm glad that humans are inherently good personally.

>>82090538
>There's nothing wrong with removing a parasite from a body
The same could be argued for older humans who live off or depend on others.
>It's terrible that they are currently unable to do so
t. edge lord loser
>What's the problem here?
If they experienced ptsd or otherwise trauma over the death that could limit their ways of functioning normally in every day life and relationships.

>>82090582
If they experienced ptsd or otherwise trauma over the death that could limit their ways of functioning normally in every day life and relationships.

Seriously? How did you know this?

>>82090538
>>82090582
>The same could be argued for older humans who live off or depend on others.
Or dependent children years out of the womb

>>82090599
People experience lasting trauma over less than death. Death reminds them their turn is coming up eventually.

>>82090582
>>82090605
Correct. So like the retard said: We SHOULD allow all of it. Why are we being selective, after all? True freedom yadda yadda.

>>82090582
>The same could be argued for older humans who live off or depend on others.
I support universal non-needs tested benefits, so presumably older humans could live off of that but in the extreme yes the same could be argued. The difference here is that the fetus requires the mother's body to live and the mother's freedom must take precedence in the same way that someone needing an organ transplant can't force you to give up an organ.
>t. edge lord loser
I'm not being edgy. I don't want people to get their limbs removed, but if they want to do so they should be allowed to do it.
>If they experienced ptsd or otherwise trauma over the death that could limit their ways of functioning normally in every day life and relationships.
Then we should ban all risky activities. Driving is a leading cause of death and causes more PTSD than war in this country. Sky diving, football, etc all have high risk of injury or fatality and can lead to families experiencing massive distress. Legalizing limb removal would affect, what, less 1000 people in this country? How many people incur life changing injuries from high risk sports? More than 1000 by quite a bit, and yet they're still allowed to do them. Smoking and drinking are huge drivers of cancer as well, yet we don't ban either and presumably some large number of people will become so sick that their family will be forced to care for them or abandon them. Should we ban those as well?

>>82090628
So you want the freedom to kill kids and other dependents?

>>82090605
Children should not be aborted but when unwanted are generally given to orphanages or family members who are willing to care for them. The difference is that the fetus requires the mother's body to live.
>>82090628
We should, and do, allow children to be given up to orphanages.

>>82090636
Kids out the womb for years still rely on the mother for breat milk or other nutrients at her expense.
>Driving is a leading cause of death and causes more PTSD than war in this country
Driving isn't the same as watching some disabled person die. Actually seeing that they cut themselves up for no reason and you encouraged it might traumatize people itself. Their options are watch a death and feel responsible and disturbed in ways that limit freedom for years or take care of the headcase and limit their freedom that way. All the nonsense you're talking about only works if people were sociopaths or totally independent without relying on anyone else.

>>82090652
The children out the womb require the mother to give breast milk or otherwise use their bodies to take care of them at the mother's expense. If you're using parasite in this way it also easily applies to born children not just the fetus they're itching to use on the black market.

>>82090684
>Kids out the womb for years still rely on the mother for breat milk or other nutrients at her expense
But they can survive without the mother and do quite often. A fetus cannot be transplanted into another woman. If you surrender a newborn baby, it can be cared for and raised to adulthood. A fetus cannot be surrendered and expected to live.
>Actually seeing that they cut themselves up for no reason
The absolute fuck would someone be watching this happen? It's a surgical procedure, I can't believe you called me edgy you're over here imagining people self-amputating? That's insane and, in the current state, what people are actually forced into if they want their limbs removed. Remember that anorexic chick about 10 years back? She gouged her legs until the bones rotted because she wanted them gone. With legal amputation she could have had them safely removed.
>All the nonsense you're talking about only works if people were sociopaths or totally independent without relying on anyone else
Making things illegal doesn't stop them from happening e.g., drugs are illegal but we have more addicts than ever before. The whole benefit of making something illegal is to allow incarceration so for example murderers can go to prison. What I'm talking about doesn't require anyone to be a sociopath at all. Self mutilation already happens, families already deal with it. Legalizing limb amputation just allows it to happen in a clinical environment and with proper medical checks (even mandated psych evals!) rather than having schizos take a butter knife to their leg.

I would argue toddlers are much more draining to a mother than what people typically consider a parasite. Are we unironically arguing kids should be killed and compared to ugly little worms because they rely heavily on their mother to live?

>>82090704
See my latest response
>But they can survive without the mother and do quite often. A fetus cannot be transplanted into another woman. If you surrender a newborn baby, it can be cared for and raised to adulthood. A fetus cannot be surrendered and expected to live.

If a fetus could be safely removed without killing it, then I would no longer support abortion. Since that procedure is not available, abortion is the only way to maximize the mother's freedom in the event that she doesn't want the fetus. Unwanted children, even newborns, can be given up safely.

>>82090735
Kids without their mother notorious end up worse off physically and mentally.
>The absolute fuck would someone be watching this happen?
You wouldn't have to watch the act you would just look at them and find out how it happened. That would be enough to disturb someone for a long time.
>Making things illegal doesn't stop them from happening
But saying even the most destructive things are fine and encourage it because muh freedom will make them more likely to happen because you support you.

>>82090753
Children within their mothers don't do "quite well" kek. And it doesn't change they're dependent on others to live and they do it at whoever's detriment. They're incapable of taking care of themselves.

Imagine being so pro choice you argue unironically orphans aren't much worse off with strangers than kids with mothers

>>82090774
>Kids without their mother notorious end up worse off physically and mentally.
Are you against orphanages then? I have to assume that unwanted children forced to remain in an unloving family also end up worse off.
>You wouldn't have to watch the act you would just look at them and find out how it happened
Do you look at your mother and imagine her getting railed by your father?
>That would be enough to disturb someone for a long time
Yes, we should ban disfigured people from going outside or interacting with anyone under the age of 18, much too scarring (pun intended).
>But saying even the most destructive things are fine
The most destructive things are non-consensual in nature: murder, rape, theft. Consensual self mutilation is weird and net unhealthy, but the person must already be pretty sick to want that, right?
>encourage it because muh freedom will make them more likely to happen because you support you.
I have never known a self-mutilator who was deterred by the legal inability to get a doctor to do the deed. They just hack and slash at themselves, get infected, and end up worse off. I highly doubt we see a rash of limb amputations if we legalize it.
>>82090797
>Children within their mothers don't do "quite well" kek.
What
>And it doesn't change they're dependent on others to live and they do it at whoever's detriment
Orphanages freely accept unwanted children
>They're incapable of taking care of themselves
Yes but there are people who freely choose to take care of them. The same can not be done for a fetus. If a fetus could be extracted and given to an orphanage, then fine ban abortion and only allow extractions.

>>82090821
You think a person who wants their child so little they hand it off to an orphanage will do a better job raising their child than strangers? That's a bit absurd. Are you for banning orphanages?

>>82090753
>>82090797
>Children without* their mothers don't do "quite well" kek
>>82090825
I'm against pretending orphaned kids don't end up worse than those with mothers. You arguing they do "quite well" is just delusional. Disfigured people don't usually do it to themselves like you supported doing. Now this retard is going to act like they know every person who chose to cut their limbs off just because. We got an expert in the house.

>>82090839
The mother possibly being bad doesn't change kids are worse off for not having a good mother as intended. I don't know how you can argue everything would be fine in an orphanage because the mother might be bad as if they're not going to be around a bunch of bad probably worse strangers including rapists anyway.

>>82090872
>Children without* their mothers don't do "quite well" kek
Sure, but mothers who don't want their child aren't typically good mothers.
>You arguing they do "quite well" is just delusional
"Quite well" as in they don't die
>Disfigured people don't usually do it to themselves like you supported doing
So given two disfigured people where one was self-inflicted and one was not, you would say only the self-inflicted one induces horror in the general populace? I'm not sure that's the case.
>Now this retard is going to act like they know every person who chose to cut their limbs off just because
Obviously I don't, but do you really think it would be a popular activity?
>>82090892
>The mother possibly being bad doesn't change kids are worse off for not having a good mother as intended
Orphanages attempt to connect children to good parents, whether they're successful or not I have no idea but the alternative does not seem good.
>because the mother might be bad
She doesn't want the kid, that's not "might be bad" that's actively does not want to or is incapable of being a mother. Again, do you want to ban orphanages?

>>82090909
Orphanages are not only typically bad places for children but they tend do worse than what a biological mother might. It's just stupidity to argue a kid would be fine getting passed around by strangers who are caught abusing them constantly. They're doing "quite well" in an orphanage just because they won't die kek. The parasites you mention can live off other hosts too, it doesn't change the label you're using.

>>82090949
>Orphanages are not only typically bad places for children but they tend do worse than what a biological mother might
So are you or are you not in favor of them existing?
>It's just stupidity to argue a kid would be fine getting passed around by strangers who are caught abusing them constantly
Because flesh and blood parents never do so and don't do so at increased rate when the child is unwanted?
>They're doing "quite well" in an orphanage just because they won't die kek
The entire comparison was to fetuses. Removed fetuses die, removed children live.
>The parasites you mention can live off other hosts too
Fetuses can not be easily transplanted to my knowledge

>>82090909
>>82090949
>She doesn't want the kid
And basically no kids or people in general want to be passed around in an orphanage. But to you someone is doing quite well as long as they don't technically die so how can it be that bad for her to raise them?

>>82090974
>And basically no kids or people in general want to be passed around in an orphanage
If the parent refuses to care for the child, what is the alternative? I'm sorry we don't live in some ideal world where all children have happy loving families, but the reality is many children are unwanted and we don't exactly want them to live on the street, do we?
>But to you someone is doing quite well as long as they don't technically die
The comparison was with removed fetuses and yes, orphaned children do remarkably well in comparison.
>so how can it be that bad for her to raise them?
Because forcing someone to do something is an abrogation of their rights

>>82090971
I'm just pointing out kids are generally worse off in orphanages and even if those orphanages take them in the kids are effectively living off someone at their expense and missing nutrients from the mother they were intended to live off. So they're these parasites as you said.

>>82090994
There doesn't need to be an alternative to point out orphanages are bad for kids and worse than being with the mother. Anything you could complain about the mother doing strangers usually do anyway and worse. No one forced women to ignore safe sex and get pregnant.

>>82091002
Children are not parasites because children can live outside of the host body. Infants can eat formula if breast milk is unavailable for example. Whether the life outcomes are worse is irrelevant because the comparison is to abortion where the fetus dies outside the host body. I understand the life outcomes are worse for orphans, but this is not a perfect world full of perfect people who only do perfect things and so we must accept it and do what we can to produce better outcomes while not abrogating people's freedoms.

>>82091030
Children are parasite by definition because they live off of others at their expense, especially newborns who need breast milk. Do you unironically also think the milk is there for no reason?

>>82091023
>There doesn't need to be an alternative to point out orphanages are bad for kids and worse than being with the mother
So you're just complaining?
>No one forced women to ignore safe sex and get pregnant
Correct, and no one should force her to raise her child. If she doesn't it, she should either get an abortion before birthing it or give it to an orphanage or a relative.

>>82091055
No I'm just pointing out worse off kids aren't doing "quite well" just because they technically live still like you said.
>Correct, and no one should force her to raise her child
But it's fine to force the child to live with worse people, deny them the nutrients they're supposed to get from the mom and kill them for being parasites because the women were irresponsible?

>>82091047
>Children are parasite by definition because they live off of others at their expense
My point is that they can survive without the mother. Abortion is a necessary evil because the fetus can not live without the mother. Children can be given to relatives or orphanages and will survive. By your definition sick people and cripples are parasites, I would disagree. I'm not arguing for euthanizing cripples.
>Do you unironically also think the milk is there for no reason?
Formula is worse than milk, I know that. My point is that they don't require milk to live, they can drink formula, which is worse yes, but they will survive.

>>82091080
They can't survive as intended without the mother because strangers treat kids worse and the kids are supposed to have breasts milk from the mom. They don't need it to live in general like you don't technically need fresh water but you do need it for optimal health.

>>82091075
>But it's fine to force the child to live with worse people
The alternative is living on the street which would be fine if there were no orphanages available but we live in a civilized country (or I do anyway) and orphanages are available.
>deny them the nutrients they're supposed to get from the mom
Rather we are simply not forcing the mother to surrender nutrients she prefers to keep
>kill them for being parasites because the women were irresponsible?
Yes, women auto-inseminate themselves and the men are blameless angels. Abortion is the only current method of maximizing the mother's potential freedom and so must be defended as an unassailable right.

>>82091107
And if optimal health isn't owed to the child you forced into existence assuming it's not a rape baby then why even support abortion? They'll do quite well because they'll technically live anyway.

>>82091107
>They can't survive as intended
Intended by who?
>kids are supposed to have breasts milk from the mom
And if the mother doesn't want or is unable to do that?
>They don't need it to live in general like you don't technically need fresh water but you do need it for optimal health
We needs lots of things for optimal health that we are not guaranteed to get by society. There are microplastics in the water and food, pollution in the air, noise pollution all around, pandemic disease, cancer causing chemicals, etc. Life is unfair. If the mother does not want the child, the child should be surrendered.

>>82088378 (OP)
I don't get the concept of dating either

Like what you go out and do some recreational stuff to see if you like each other. That's odd to me.

Going to dinner also sounds horrible

>>82091121
I support abortion because my only concern is the maximization of freedom. The mother must be able to remove the fetus if she does not want it, just as she should be able to remove her legs if she doesn't want them.

>>82091110
The orphanage itself is an alternative to taking responsibility for your kids, full of worse abuse than the mothers typically inflict and it's not very advanced either. Orphanages are old. The nutrients in the breast milk exist specifically because of the baby she forced into existence.

>>82091138
i should be able to rape and kil lthen

>>82088378 (OP)
Jesus basically uses telepathy to distribute sex to humans. To sustain their bodies energy with love n affection. But doesnt make enough girls to give every man one, so he tries to let a lot of guys take turns hugging the same girl. Becuz Jesus is managing earths resources in a very real way, Jesus has many spreadsheets in excel which he uses to monitor financial decisions. ur name is definitely in his spreadsheet, he actually does put a lot of guys in the group of incel. Becuz it is just a budgeting thing, he doesnt really care about ur own personal experience. He actually makes this decision 4 u, Becuz, he has a lot of power using telepathy n discovered when he comanded women to suck chads penis, it made a lot of money. Becuz wealth needs a lot of effort to produce to keep human society afloat, Becuz Jesus is playing basically with a simulation game he has open on his pc that he enjoys. He loves to watch cities grow.

>>82091125
Intended by nature and whatever made the women produce the milk specifically for the baby. If the mother doesn't want to give the baby what it needs for good health she's forcing it to have worse health on top of forcing it into existence and into an orphanage full of abuse.

>>82091142
>The orphanage itself is an alternative to taking responsibility for your kids
Correct
>full of worse abuse than the mothers typically inflict and it's not very advanced either
Abuse is illegal and should remain illegal as a non-consensual act. Perhaps we need to investigate orphanages and produce a better system, but the orphanage system is a good idea that maximizes our freedom.
>The nutrients in the breast milk exist specifically because of the baby she forced into existence
So do we agree that abortion is better than giving birth to an unwanted child? Optimally we match fetus removers to fetus wanters, but that's not possible at the moment.
>>82091149
I already covered this. Your freedom cannot impact the freedom of others. Murder and rape are abrogations of the freedom of the victim.
>>82091173
Nature has no intents. You're arguing that we need a perfect world full of perfect people. It's unrealistic. If you prevent mothers from abortion or giving up unwanted children, children will just be left in dumpsters or on the side of the road.

>>82091138
But abortion is killing for convenience and to avoid responsibility for mistakes. So do you support killing people for convenience and to avoid responsibility?

>>82091195
>But abortion is killing for convenience and to avoid responsibility for mistakes
Abortion is the removal of a fetus, the fetus cannot survive outside the mother and so dies.
>So do you support killing people for convenience and to avoid responsibility?
If some situation occurs where someone will die if you do not perform an action and you refuse to perform the action, that's fine. If, for example, someone needs a liver transplant and you refuse to give up your liver and they die, nothing "wrong" has occurred. The fetus requires the mother to hold it to term in order to live, she refuses, it dies, no "wrong" has occurred.

>>82091194
Abuse is illegal and you think it should remain illegal but you support women abusing their children and limiting their freedom for their own freedom. If nature has no intents why do women produce breast milk specifically for babies to have normal health and bodies? This isn't about perfection, it's about paying attention and taking responsibility. To you that seems unattainable.

>>82091211
Kids out the womb can't survive without the mother or someone else at their expense. So they're also technically parasites.The situation is more like you ruined your chance for promotion by choosing wrong so you kill your competiton.

>>82091216
>you support women abusing their children and limiting their freedom for their own freedom
Putting a child into the orphanage system is not abuse. Abuse may happen within the system but the act of placing them there is not inherently abusive since the purpose of the system is not to produce abuse.
>If nature has no intents why do women produce breast milk specifically for babies to have normal health and bodies?
Nature cannot have intents, it's not a conscious being
>To you that seems unattainable
The world currently gives you the idea that is attainable?

>>82091232
>Kids out the womb can't survive without the mother or someone else at their expense
We've already been over this so many times. People choose to care for the kids. If no one chooses to care for them then presumably they will die but that's not the case.
>So they're also technically parasites
People are free to choose to support parasites. The distinction is that no one should be forced to care for parasites.
>The situation is more like you ruined your chance for promotion by choosing wrong so you kill your competiton
I have no idea what this means

>>82091244
Putting the kid in a place where they experience worse abuse than with you and denying them nutrients made specifically for them, which makes them more likely to develop things like diabetes or obesity, is abuse. The human body and humans as a species clearly produce breast milk specifically for their babies.

>>82091261
>If no one chooses to care for them then presumably they will die
No they'd definitely die especially early on because their bodies and minds are too weak. So by definition they're parasites living at others expense.

>>82091281
So you want to force mothers to raise their children for 18 years and you don't think that will lead to any consequences? It seems much better to simply put more checks on the orphanage system to dissuade abuse. Regardless, I always have to side with the party that is being forced into action.
>>82091298
Even so, people choose to care for them. I don't really care if you want to call them parasites or whatever. The point is that people choose to care versus being forced to care. No one should be forced to care for anyone.

>>82091310
The mothers are forcing the kids into existence already, it's no different from expecting someone to clean the mess they made. Omg how could you force me to clean. I only brought it up because you insisted parasites should be free to kill. You're just kind of slow in understanding all that means.

>>82091338
>The mothers are forcing the kids into existence already
So what?
>no different from expecting someone to clean the mess they made
If they make the mess in your house, sure, but the fetus lives in the mother's body.
>I only brought it up because you insisted parasites should be free to kill
I repeatedly said that if it could survive outside the mother's body it's not a parasite. You decided on a different definition.
>You're just kind of slow in understanding all that means.
Considering how many times I have had to repeat myself on the exact same point, I don't think I'm the slow one.

>>82091338
Girls r all the evil big brain in the sky. He knocks them up himself. Becuz most babies dont have souls. He controls them like puppets to make different concepts into a reality. He calls it a world. But, he doesnt make us gfs or let us breed his clones. Becuz our own child wouldnt even have a soul either, it wld just be his soul again. So it doesnt really matter at all, but the only problem is that he also repeatedly calls us incel even tho he controls sex becuz he is actually the woman.

>>82091363
So if you care about forcing people to do things the mother already forced the situation on the kid. Women getting abortions or killing their parasite children isn't done in or limited to their house, it's in the Publix and society we all live in. The definition of parasite involves young kids because they couldn't survive without living off of and at the expense of others, your personal definition of what you think a parasite is doesn't matter. You are slow because you don't understand the words you're using or the implications of it.

>>82091363
>>82091398
>it's in the public* and society we all live in

>>82091398
>So if you care about forcing people to do things the mother already forced the situation on the kid
She forced life on the child, that doesn't mean she should be forced to raise it for 18 years.
>Women getting abortions or killing their parasite children isn't done in or limited to their house, it's in the Publix and society we all live in
I don't think Publix offers abortion services, I also don't think any abortion happens in public. At the very least, I've never seen an abortion performed in public.
>The definition of parasite involves young kids because they couldn't survive without living off of and at the expense of others, your personal definition of what you think a parasite is doesn't matter
That's your definition, you can't redefine my arguments however you want lmao. I specifically said that fetuses are parasites because they, very specifically, will not survive outside of the host. A child can survive, even a newborn can survive outside the mother without the mother's presence.
>You are slow because you don't understand the words you're using or the implications of it.
I suppose if you change my arguments then I won't understand what I'm saying, I guess that's true. Well done buddy, what a novel way to win an argument.

>>82091428
Why shouldn't she be responsible for the child she forced into the world? I corrected publix not even 2 mins later.
>I specifically said that fetuses are parasites because they, very specifically, will not survive outside of the host
And newborns out the womb don't survive without other people anyway so there you go.

>>82091459
>Why shouldn't she be responsible for the child she forced into the world?
It is her freedom to not take responsibility. I'm not condoning it, it's just a fact.
>I corrected publix not even 2 mins later.
>what is a joke
>And newborns out the womb don't survive without other people anyway so there you go
No one is forced to care for them is the difference. I have explained this so many times, stop being autistic man. If a mother doesn't want a newborn, she gives it up, and it gets cared for by a hospital, relatives, an orphanage, whatever, and it lives. If she gives up a fetus, it just dies. That is the difference. As I have said maybe a dozen times already. You can quote the definition of parasite all you want, but surprisingly it doesn't change anything. I explained my argument, I explained my definition, you should be able to understand the words I'm saying instead of autistically clinging to the dictionary definition of a word (which, by the way, would generally not be interpreted to include fetuses or children given that it specifically says OF ANOTHER SPECIES and to my knowledge fetuses are human). Good god man, do they make meds for your condition?

>>82091490
Her freedom doesn't matter any more than the laws of the time or the kids freedom she ignores.
>No one is forced to care for them is the difference
That doesn't change that they rely on others to live which was even your definition. No one is forced to carry other parasites either, they can easily do a cleanse or avoid certain foods. It doesn't change the meaning you used retard.

>>82091490
>>82091517
>, I explained my definition, you should be able to understand the words I'm saying instead of autistically clinging to the dictionary definition of a word (which, by the way, would generally not be interpreted to include fetuses or children given that it specifically says OF ANOTHER SPECIES
Your definition is based on the one in the dictionary and still applies to the kids out the womb especially in the first few years. They can't live without their "host" or support so you argued it's fine to kill them.

>>82091517
>Her freedom doesn't matter any more than the laws of the time
This entire thread I have been arguing that only non-consensual actions should be illegal
>kids freedom she ignores
She does not consent to raising the child and therefore does not need to. You should not force someone to do something they don't want to do.
>That doesn't change that they rely on others to live which was even your definition
They rely on others who voluntarily care for them is the distinction. If no one volunteers to do so, then no one should have to care for them.
>No one is forced to carry other parasites either, they can easily do a cleanse or avoid certain foods. It doesn't change the meaning you used retard.
What are you talking about? I never said anyone should be forced to do anything. That's like, my entire thing dude. Are you illiterate?

>>82091539
>still applies to the kids out the womb especially in the first few years
They can live without the mother though
>They can't live without their "host" or support so you argued it's fine to kill them
If no one volunteers to support them, then fine. Same goes for cripples and etc. If no one is willing to care for them, then I guess they die. That sucks but it's better than forcing people to do things. Generally this never happens though since we e.g., pay people to do or have charitable programs where people volunteer to do so. The difference with fetuses is that without the mother it dies regardless of how many people volunteer to care for it.

>>82091545
And the mother isn't getting consent from the children you support her killing or abusing. There are people who voluntarily keep parasites, it doesn't change they need the people to live as described in your defense based on the actual definition of the word.

>>82091558
The meaning of parasite doesn't specify one host and trying to make your fanfiction definition work that way is pathetic. The fact is they die without support or living at someone's expense. People choosing to do it or not doesn't change the meaning of the word.

>>82088378 (OP)
>older female co-worker wants me to date her daughter
>started talking about how she's gonna present her to me
>started promoting her to me
>started calling me "her future son-in-law"
What do I do? I've never done this. I don't know if I give her what she wants, dating is beyond me to understand.

>>82088378 (OP)
marriage is catholic crap, it isn't the end goal of anything relevant

>>82091568
>And the mother isn't getting consent from the children you support her killing or abusing
You don't need consent to remove yourself from someone
>There are people who voluntarily keep parasites
As is their right!
> it doesn't change they need the people to live as described in your defense based on the actual definition of the word
You seem to think that my issue is with them being parasites, it's not. My issue is with the freedom of the mother being abrogated.
>>82091593
>The meaning of parasite doesn't specify one host
It does specify "different species"
>trying to make your fanfiction definition work that way is pathetic
You seem to completely misunderstand my point. The problem is not "parasite" the problem is "freedom". You can not coerce someone into providing labor they do not want to provide.
>The fact is they die without support or living at someone's expense
Fine, life isn't fair and sometimes people die.
>People choosing to do it or not doesn't change the meaning of the word
Again, I was using parasite in a very specific way and it wasn't the crux of what I was saying anyway. Sometimes people narrowly define a word to use in a certain context. Stop being autistic.

Dating used to just happen. Youve just been gaslit to thinking its some grand achievement bc nobody knows any better. You are overthinking it. Women actually used to like men and it would just happen. Something went horribly wrong.