~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]lostapwbm27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Is it safe to drink a little alcohol while pregnant, such as a glass of wine? No. According to the CDC and the U.S. Surgeon General, “There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink and no safe kind of alcohol.” According to the American Academy of Pediatrics: “There is no safe amount of alcohol when a woman is pregnant. Evidence based research states that even drinking small amounts of alcohol while pregnant can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, or sudden infant death syndrome.” When you drink alcohol, so does your developing baby. Any amount of alcohol, even in one glass of wine, passes through the placenta from the mother to the growing baby. Developing babies lack the ability to process, or metabolize, alcohol through the liver or other organs. They absorb all of the alcohol and have the same blood alcohol concentration as the mother. It makes no difference if the alcoholic drink consumed is a distilled spirit or liquor such as vodka, beer, or wine. Alcohol is a teratogen, a toxic substance to a developing baby, and can interfere with healthy development causing brain damage and other birth defects. Most babies negatively affected by alcohol exposure have no physical birth defects. These children have subtle behavioral and learning problems that are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as Autism or Attention Deficit Disorder instead of one of the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
Is it safe to drink a little alcohol while pregnant, such as a glass of wine?
No. According to the CDC and the U.S. Surgeon General, “There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink and no safe kind of alcohol.” According to the American Academy of Pediatrics: “There is no safe amount of alcohol when a woman is pregnant. Evidence based research states that even drinking small amounts of alcohol while pregnant can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth, prematurity, or sudden infant death syndrome.”
When you drink alcohol, so does your developing baby. Any amount of alcohol, even in one glass of wine, passes through the placenta from the mother to the growing baby. Developing babies lack the ability to process, or metabolize, alcohol through the liver or other organs. They absorb all of the alcohol and have the same blood alcohol concentration as the mother. It makes no difference if the alcoholic drink consumed is a distilled spirit or liquor such as vodka, beer, or wine.
Alcohol is a teratogen, a toxic substance to a developing baby, and can interfere with healthy development causing brain damage and other birth defects. Most babies negatively affected by alcohol exposure have no physical birth defects. These children have subtle behavioral and learning problems that are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as Autism or Attention Deficit Disorder instead of one of the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders.
National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
I know that females are not amenable to facts or reason, only emotion and force, but just in case a man comes through.
Feminists are females who loathe the fact that they were born with a vagina and a uterus. They recognize the capacity of men to use reason, logic, and if need be, superior force. They loathe men for having these tools and themselves for lacking them. They despise the fact that babies come out of them and hate the women who are content with having a man and children to care for.
To be a feminist to rage against the world.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That is one of the most succinct and pinpoint accurate characterisations of feminism I have ever heard.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
And yet at the same time, they CHERISH the fact that men NEED women (and their "wombs"), and use it -- and any/all "crotchfruit" that may come from it -- as a TOOL to extract resources & privileges from men.
To be a "feminist" female is to hate everyone and everything, and desire to ENSLAVE everyone into obedience to their arbitrary whims... by whatever means are necessary.
To be a "feminist" male... is to essentially & willingly be a "cucked" slave to the above; it's a form of self-emasculation & self-lobotomy (destroying the "rational" centers of the brain and substituting "whatever women want" in it's place).
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
There's no such thing as feminists anymore, just "revenge activists" looking for preferential treatment and a society where nothing they do can ever be viewed as wrong.
[–]GenesisRunner12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Feminists are Gender Supremacists, period.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
nice term
[–]Volentimeh0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's a big dose of racism in there too.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's all they ever were; don't let their "revisionist history" deceive you.
[–]legessi11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dude...that place is crazy. Read some posts on why there isn't toxic femininity if there is toxic masculinity, and they basically say, well, no behaviors that women exhibit are harmful....
It's a bunch of women that absolutely refuse to take responsibility for their own actions or actions women as a whole make.
"Waaaaa, men dominate STEM fields!" "What's your degree?" "Gender studies..." "Why are you part of the problem and not the solution?" "Pig..."
Yup. It's a circle jerk of women out-victiming each other.
[–]Isaiah4verse1Burning Bush11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's likely their mother's drank too.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or did crack
[–]mgtow_eagle13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
logic and women do not mix. also sense of honor and virtue are male traits.
[–]DigitalScetis10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
It isn't so much the choice; it's the insulation from the consequences. That's the real danger of the feminine prerogative towards hypoagency. That is why every feminine advance is always a dual strategy: assert absolute license to everything, while at the same time asserting that every other agent take responsibility for the consequences of that license.
If there is something wrong, she can give up the baby. If there is a lifetime of costs, she can get the court to make the father pay. She can abort at will. She can even kill the baby after it is born, claim psychological distress (which explains the drinking) and be sentenced to little prison time...perhaps even no prison time. Those are the things we always knew, of course, but what makes the NYC Rule on Giving Pregnant Women Drinks is how brazen it is. If you are going to do this, at least have the decency to do it out of the public eye.
More ironic is that this is the same city who has banned indoor smoking "for your own good." The same city which banned super big gulps and sodas "for your own good." The same city that has banned tobaccoless e-cigs "for your own good." The same "nanny city" that has basically elevated public health as a secular religion, and shoved it down all New Yorker's throats. Then again, it seems New York is all on board with inconveniencing men in the name of public health. But when it comes to the women, nothing is off the table. Expect to see them start pushing for exemptions to the public parks smoking ban when a nursing mother needs a drag.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link
Or among the more recent/latest things... is to ban "foster children" from being in a home, or a vehicle that has ever been "smoked in" -- basically meaning no one that is (or at least who openly admits to being or having been a "smoker") can become a foster or adoptive parent -- why? Well to protect the little "wards of the state" from the horrible nasty long term effects of "second hand" and "third hand" tobacco smoke.
That's right -- they'd rather foster kids be WITHOUT parents -- than allow someone who may occasionally "smoke a cigarette in his car" to become their parent.
Meanwhile, of course you can be involved in all kinds of other fucked-up and perverse shit, be incapable of managing your own finances & life, have half a dozen kids from different (even unknown) "fathers", even have a whole long laundry list of minor criminal offenses... and NONE of that will disqualify you.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
The hate on tobacco is a way to redirect away from all the other stuff in our food and environment that causes cancer and disease. I smoke organic tobacco leaves I order, shred, and tube myself. There are more carcinogens in people's dinners than my cigarettes!
Reminds me, I knew a 20 year old chick who was hired at a daycare. She had not training or certification to work with children and there was no criminal background check. She posts slutty pics of herself online and can 'take care' of children!?
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
The hate on tobacco is a way to redirect away from all the other stuff in our food and environment that causes cancer and disease. There are more carcinogens in people's dinners than my cigarettes!
Actually most of the rest of that stuff is equally harmless, unless ingested or inhaled in vast and highly unlikely amounts...
And even then, the vast majority of what are called "carcinogens" really aren't "causal" agents, but rather irritants that facilitate the actual cause: which is primarily viruses; and most specifically "intimate/sexual contact viruses" (which are spread mostly via promiscuity).
But of course that doesn't fit the wider narrative, or the currently en vogue "lifestyles" and the "politically correct" and truly perverse ideological worldviews that are constantly being promoted.
Indeed. And one wonders, if she contracts a STD (or more likely when and how many) -- be it any of a dozen of the types of HPV that are known to cause cancers, or the several varieties of Herpes, or Hep B or C, etc -- will she (or her doctor) notify the management of that daycare? And even if she or they did, would the daycare management then inform the parents of the very young, immature immune system, children who attend?
Of course they won't... and a whole bevy of excuses and rationalizations will be made:
that her "health" is a private matter -- nevermind that the same people will DEMAND that all of those children be FORCIBLY vaccinated against Measles, Mumps, and Chicken Pox because those things are labeled "public health concerns" (an absurdity if ever there was one, since ALL of those are {or were} trivial childhood disease that had evolved to be more of a mild inconvenience; and were & are virtually never fatal to children in the western civilized nations, at least unless there is some complicating factor like an artificially {iatrogenically} compromised immune system) -- and to the point that parents who fail to vaccinate are threatened with loss of custody, and even potentially criminal charges.
they would also likely claim that it is "her body, her choice" and that she can "consent" to whatever she wants in terms of sexual activity (no matter how perverse, or how virologically & infectiously "risky") -- and yet again the children (snotty noses and all) are not allowed the sanctity of their bodies; and neither they nor their parents are allowed the "choice" in terms of vaccinations, etc; nor can they be said to be making an "informed consent" regarding their exposure to whatever this STD-carrying "slut" may be knowingly infected with (the children not even being capable of comprehending, much less offering consent, and the parents being deprived of the very data they would need for any consent to be "informed").
Thus parents who would never allow their children to come within 1,000 yards of a legally operating brothel; nor to interact, even in an entirely innocent manner, with a "prostitute" (and nevermind that said prostitutes are required to submit to an entire battery of STD tests on a regular basis) -- are nevertheless unwittingly exposing their children to someone who almost certainly is carrying one or more STD's (and who could easily infect the children in any number of ways), among which are known to cause various cancerous growths (debilitating if not fatal) a decade or so later; right around the age when the kids will reach puberty and in all probability begin becoming sexually active in turn (and thus will bear the blame).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link
I slightly disagree. The rates of cancer, diseases and sickness has increased overall along with the advancement of technology. Our modern lifestyles create conditions for disease to thrive. A stressed body is fertile for disease, and I think that is a lot of it. I hesitate to say all these things are harmless, the pesticides, pollution, chemicals in products we use, food additives, corrupted water, fluorescent lighting, etc.. It all adds up and people are sicker than ever. Ironically the medicine industry is a leading cause of death and disease. Although I do agree with your basic premise, that most things like food are not as scary and fatal as made out to be, as long as you're sensible with your lifestyle choices, eat moderately with decent health in mind, exercise, sleep, sunshine, etc.. And YES, sexual promiscuity is a huge transmitter of viruses and diseases. Some diseases you can catch and have no idea you're carrying them! So why are we encouraged to sleep around like compulsive, horny animals? Bisexuality is terrible for this, because HIV transmits through sodomy so easily, and bisexuals have sex with everyone.
Thumbs up on the rest of your comment, well said and excellent points.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
I slightly disagree. The rates of cancer, diseases and sickness has increased overall along with the advancement of technology.
Disagree all you want, correlation is not causation.
And when it comes to cancers and viruses, actual causation has been proven -- even more so in animals than in humans.
Seriously, it's been known for a century now in the latter, and increasingly proven over the past few decades with very specific viral agents as the cause of human cancers (Cf Paul W Ewalds books and lectures).
People just don't like the implications, and much prefer to continue to scapegoat various "risk factors"... which as previously noted are at most "facilitating" factors (about the only exceptions to that are things like overexposure to ionizing radiation).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Paul W Ewalds
I will check out this guy. Makes sense that added stress and toxic pollution to the body and mind can be facilitating factors for diseases such as cancer. I haven't looked too deeply into it, although there is this new documentary series that just came out called The Truth About Cancer, available online... Viruses eh? Interesting. Seems almost every other person gets cancer these days. So of course this is something worth looking into, thanks.
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Paul W Ewald I will check out this guy.
Paul W Ewald
I will check out this guy.
He has a couple of books (IMO most excellent, well worth the purchase AND time to read & "digest") -- mostly written a decade or more ago -- solid science, which he relates in an understandable fashion, and then uses as the basis for certain speculative predictions/projections (but which he is very clear are exactly that).
Also... you'll probably find all of the following videos to be illuminating & interesting (he's a bit of a "rebel" within the scientific/academic community -- but he's not some "wacko" -- in fact IMO he "stops short" of many things he should have realized {and may in fact realize privately}).
The most recent: "Toward a unified, evolutionary theory of cancer"-- Paul Ewald, CEM"*
From a 2008 lecture on the same topic (alas nearly 2 hours long)
A (much shorter & sweeter) TED talk entitled: "Can we domesticate germs?"
Viruses eh? Interesting.
Yes viruses, in fact called "onco-viruses" (aka onco-genic, or cancer-causing).
You HAVE to have at least heard of the link between certain types of "HPV" ("Human Papilloma Virus(es)") and cancer -- but it is FAR from the only known human oncovirus, Cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus#Overview_table
The thing is (and IMHO the "root" problem) that the common way of thinking about "cancers" (or "Cancer" with a capital "C") is that it is akin to some specific, even "magical/mystical" EVIL, some kind of "karmic" punishment -- thus you end up with rather ridiculously irrational (quasi "moralistic" thinking) things like this dialog from the movie "50/50":
Adam: A tumor? Dr. Ross: Yes. Adam: Me? Dr. Ross: Yes. Adam: That doesn't make any sense though. I mean... I don't smoke, I don't drink... I recycle...
Adam: A tumor?
Dr. Ross: Yes.
Adam: Me?
Adam: That doesn't make any sense though. I mean... I don't smoke, I don't drink... I recycle...
That last word in the last line quoted there is critical... he recycles -- i.e. he is "virtuous" according to the modernist green-liberal "moral code".
He may as well have said: "I don't use the 'N-word'; I'm a vegan; I vote; Plus I vote a straight 'Democrat' [or 'Green party'] ticket; I ride a bicycle/drive a Prius..."
The irony of course is that "science" has ostensibly informed us that "disease" is not linked to "immoral" behavior -- yet people PERSIST in making the link...
Why?
Because in point of fact there often IS a link between (certain kinds of) "immoral" behavior... and subsequent disease. Sometimes the link is quick, relatively obvious, and virtually certain -- i.e "acute" disease that has a fast onset after the immoral act. But sometimes the link is not as quick, not as obvious, and not even necessarily as certain -- that means delayed/deferred (aka "long fuse") disease that becomes apparent not hours or days or weeks later, but months, years or even a decade or more later; and then as a kind of "chronic" problem (think syphilitic insanity etc.)
Moreover, the fact that "cancers" (i.e. the colloquial meaning is usally reserved for FATAL metastasizing uncontrolled "growths" or tumors) are nevertheless just a particular DEBILITATING (pervasive and NOT able to be "cleared up" or cured via the immune system) version of what many other "infections" (especially viral infections) also cause. To wit various "warts" or "poxes" or even "pustules" -- all of which are really "abnormal" and uncontrolled, chaotic "growths" of human cells; but which are (again "colloquially") considered different than "cancers/tumors" because they are non-fatal, and usually "resolve" on their own (i.e. the immune system either clears/cures them, or else at least manages to maintain control over them). Technically of course, even a common "wart" on the palm or back of your hand IS in fact a "cancer" a "tumor" (i.e. again, an "abnormal growth of cells"), it's just a relatively benign (aka not "metastasizing" and non-fatal) form... so we DON'T usually refer to them as "cancer"; and yet that's technically what they are.
Seems almost every other person gets cancer these days. So of course this is something worth looking into, thanks.
Well, ask yourself this: "What do these people all have in common?" (And -- LOL -- you can skip things like "they recycle", or "they all have cell phones".)
Also, you need to look up, and factor in one other thing (related to the above NON-metastasizing "growths") -- and that is the phenomenon known as "incidentaloma" -- many of them VERY tiny tumors, the vast majority of which (we really don't have enough data to know statistically at this point in time) would probably "disappear" is simply left alone (aka the tumors would "resolve themselves"; or in the self-serving jargon of modern medicine they would "exhibit spontaneous remission" {as if it were some rare "magical" event that some disease aspect SHOULD be "cleared/cured" by the immune system WITHOUT the intervention of a human doctor -- BTW demonstrating the inherent egotistical arrogance of many within the profession}).
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
I'll check out the links thanks. You've got me interested...
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
I know it sounds strange... but I seriously think that the Virus-Cancer (and especially "STD-->Cancer" causative link); will eventually prove to be one of the chief things that "ends" or causes a backlash against, and a complete reconsideration and then reversal of our present "promiscuity+perversity" societal mindset.
Not just because of the STD-->Cancer link in and of itself, but because the present (and decades prolonged) pervasive perverse promiscuity is a soft of "evolutionary game changer"...
For the VIRUSES, that is.
See, they've evolved to be "long fuse" via a combination of the fact that their very transmission mechanism (sexual/intimate contact) is -- or at least previously always was -- essentially "self-limiting". The variations that survived & propagated were those that DIDN'T cause much immediate or short term harm... whatever harm they caused (as an unintended side effect mind you) as part of their "burrowing in" HAD to be long-delayed.
But in an era of not only multiple "hookups" but a massive interconnected & intermixing array or "network" of partners (both genders, and mixing almost randomly... in & around virtually EVERY bodily orifice) -- well these days those "constraints" are no longer present.
The more virulent strains (i.e. those that cause aggressive cancers, and much MUCH sooner after infection -- a few years rather than multiple decades later) -- they no longer suffer any evolutionary disadvantage.
Add in the "global" exchange of peoples -- not just automobiles that widen one's sexual partner possibilities to hundreds of miles of radius, but pervasive air travel, mass immigration/emigration (and not just one-way, nor only of the lowest/poorest classes -- but with the possibility/probability of easy, even frequent "return home & come back again... repeat") -- well the world of human hosts is becoming one vast multi-hubbed world for such viruses... it's a "field day" like none they have ever experienced before.
And from the viral perspective, even better yet (or worse yet from the human health viewpoint) the hosts are essentially oblivious, even have a MASSIVELY "arrogant" sense of safety/immunity -- i.e. the (almost entirely false) concept that wearing a condom makes the contact "safe" (when in fact it really mainly mitigates the likelihood of pregnancy, and only partially reduces the likelihood of the transmission of certain specific viruses); or that "frequent testing" can detect virtually all STD's (when in fact only about 1/2 of known STD's even have "tests" and most are really not all that reliable) or that modern medicine ("antibiotics" etc) can then CURE any/all of them (again, highly inaccurate, many can be "treated" but only a handful can actually be said to be truly "cured" and even then the body isn't necessarily purged of them).
Toss all of that together, along with the fact that "resistant" strains (that are not only not "curable" but essentially UNtreatable in any manner) will at some point in time (I'm betting within the next decade or two at most) will be "exploding" in an exponential fashion.
I'd return to that exchange from the 50/50 movie -- where the character notes his "morality" and avoidance of things he thinks would somehow lead to him being more vulnerable to cancer. Note how he was willing to change his activities to match his view of "health-morality". (And no offense, but your own statements of concern over "toxins" and "chemicals" etc -- exhibit a similar mindset.)
Now transfer that to some decade or two hence: when -- despite all of the billions and billions spent on "health care" and all of the organic-vegans, etc -- all of a sudden, very YOUNG people start being diagnosed with very AGGRESSIVE cancers, an "epidemic" of them actually; in the same way that say AIDS struck the gay community.
And around the same time, virtually ALL cancers will have been proven to be causally linked to viral infections, and most of them transmitted via intimate/sexual contact -- and yet at the same time, no "magic silver bullet" of medicine can FIX the problem.
Well, you tell me... what is the societal reaction going to be?
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The same city which banned super big gulps and sodas
What a sad irony.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
How is this any different than manslaughter?
If you know something you are going to do has a high probability of injuring or killing another person... and you do it anyway...
In some senses, I'd say it's arguably WORSE than manslaughter.
Seriously, if you have known anyone who has suffered from FAS, or other seriously-mentally-debilitating birth defects... well the idea that anyone would intentionally or recklessly cause a child to be born and have to live their life that way...
[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't care since I'll be birthing no babies myself but logically it makes sense: every woman intending to have pregnancy to full term is abusing the child by taking drugs, alcohol, etc., that harm the fetus.
If the intention is abortion by all means drink, shoot up, whatever, but get that abortion.
[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
update; looks like feminists are busy removing threads. big surprise. next time ill screen capture that shit. its only a matter of time before everyone knows what you do. damage control will only help you in the short term. youre efforts at hiding the truth are only cosmetic, we all know that youre not the movement you claim to be.
[–]NaughtyFred1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Get that snapshillbot they have on thebluepill sub working for mgtow.
They won't be able to hide jack shit.
next time ill screen capture that shit.
Use archive.is and grab the whole page (as searchable text too).
[–]AugmentedFury4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Their mothers chugged alcohol, sorted cracked, and inhaled asbestos when those idiots were in the womb.
[–]oldredder1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Some of it is feminism. Not all.
Some of it is personal selfishness that's very common yet not a part of feminism itself.
Either way it's not a concern of men going their own way. If future retards, criminals or addicts (born addicted to booze, coke, etc., due to mother's habits while pregnant) are to be .... why should we care?
We need only prepare defenses against those who are a threat and those who are born retarded or disabled physically are no threat to us. It's not our fault so we bear no blame. Those born today who might be a threat wouldn't be until 15-20 years later anyhow.
[–]foomberry1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They're the ones who shouldn't be having children. They'll ruin their lives with that kind of mentality. It's their body but if their convincing a child then they should be responsible enough to prevent harm to the child's body.
[–]Ovendice1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well what did you expect? Women for the last 20 years have been raised from day one that they are accountable to no one and don't 'have' to do anything they don't want to and no one can tell them otherwise. Which is why they have NO character at all, zero spine, are complete cowards and basically nothing more than piles of shit with arms and legs.
And this is also another reason marriage is/was so important before and still is in most of the world: Parents need to regulate each other so this sort thing doesn't happen, but now women just get pregnant whenever and over half of mothers are single now.
I would say that when their children are born with Downs Syndrome it'll be a daily reminder of what a selfish, irresponsible piece of shit they each are as women, mothers and people, but that doesn't work with today's Western women, the only 'intelligence' they even have is creating a way to blame someone else for what they do wrong.
Empathy, accountability, responsibility, caring, shame- these are all traits of a human, today's Western women are sub-human trash and less than nothing and feeling zero guilt or even concern for drinking alcohol while pregnant is merely one more example.
[–]chronoic0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well for starters just being a feminist is a problem.
You are trying to apply reason to a rational discussion. Militant Feminists want "rights" the way a toddler wants another toddler's toy.
Try explaining to little Jimmy why it's little Billy's turn to play with the toy dinosaur. Little Jimmy doesn't care that he has had it all morning and it's time to share, he just wants the fucking dinosaur.
[–]abandonedthrowaway320 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Think of this as Darwinism in action. The stupid ones reproduce, but their offspring unfortunately die off as a consequence of their neglect and poor decision-making, in turn, their genetics don't get passed on to the next generation and phased out instead. This is like nature's failsafe to get rid of the dumber members of its species.
While this is a very cold and cynical point of view, but I can't make out a better explanation than this.
[–]Brokemgtow0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
All this feminist talk is giving me a headache
Let them die.......
See, your first mistake was thinking feminists use logic and empathy.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm in a glass house on this one. I used the "they're my hands" argument when I shook several babies to death.
well... I suddenly feel like a more intelligent and moral person relative to that psychopathy... these corrupted women are drunk on narcissism, and indulged delusions of grandeur.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Link?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]lostapwbm27 points28 points29 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]GenesisRunner12 points13 points14 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Volentimeh0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]legessi11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Isaiah4verse1Burning Bush11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mgtow_eagle13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DigitalScetis10 points11 points12 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points (21 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (18 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oldredder0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NaughtyFred1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]thrownaway_MGTOW1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AugmentedFury4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oldredder1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]foomberry1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ovendice1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chronoic0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]abandonedthrowaway320 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Brokemgtow0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link