Don't even try to kinkshame me. My kinks are my business.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

Manocide will be taking place shortly after Mayocide fam. It's gussy power from here on out. 😎

Manocide

The TERF vs Trap wars are gonna be off the hook when this happens

like how well these lasses did?

Not soon enough. Manocide now!

Just for context, I found an image of the author.

When someone self identifies as ' agnostic ' it's a safe bet they're either a giant pussy or don't know what it means or both.

Do you know what agnostic means?

Do you? That is the question. Not adopting a label like atheist for any personal or social reason is fine, but it's also very likely you're a giant pussy. Every person who I have met who calls themselves agnostic believes the term is some lukewarm compromise between theism and atheism. Are you one of these retards?

You know Sagan was agnostic, right?

Being an agnostic has nothing to do with being a "pussy" or being afraid of the atheist label.

Most agnostics just aren't so certain there isn't some higher power, most believe the chance is very small, but they can't be sure.

I call myself agnostic sometimes, and what I mean by that is "I don't believe a god exists, or any higher power exists, but I'm not going to say it's outright impossible."

You're an atheist and a giant pussy. Hope that clears things up for you.

What do you call someone who thinks it's a 50/50 between atheism and theism?

Someone who can't answer a question about their own beliefs.

Well, that's retarded

If I ask "do you believe in God(s)?" a theist will obviously answer yes to this. If you don't answer yes, what does that make you? To clarify further, atheism/theism deals with what you believe or not. Gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge rather than belief. Google atheist agnostic venn diagram.

Undecided/atheistic. Conflating the two is a cheap way for atheists to avoid responsibility in defending their own beliefs.

See? This right here is why definitions actually matter. You just said that people who do not believe in a proposition must be made to defend that choice.

No. I said people who deny a proposition should defend it.

Good thing we aren't talking about whatever label you want to give that group instead of talking about atheists.

How sure are you that a god doesn't exist?

Virtually no one would make that claim, myself included.

On a scale of 1-10, what's the likelihood?

We're not talking about probabilities. We're talking about what a person's stated beliefs are and the label that is attached to those statements.

Of course we're talking about probabilities. No serious person is 100% sure of anything, so the question is the difference between being fairly sure that God doesn't exist and not having a preference. Most people call the latter agnosticism. Atheists say they're the same thing because they want to avoid any obligation to defend their worldview. When Richard Dawkins says he's a 6.9/7 that God doesn't exist, he's saying it's something that he believes. Most atheists do the same, but prefer if they can shift all burden in the argument onto the religious. It's the entire point of the awful "Russell's Teapot" argument.

You're completely missing the point. Atheist literally means that person isn't a theist, full stop. You appear not to know what agnostic means and you appear not to know that 99.9% of people who call themselves atheist are agnostic atheists. Same goes for agnostics. Saying you are agnostic without following that up with an indicator of the issue in question doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying "I don't believe that you can know the answer to that." completely out of the blue. Agnostic about what?

No. I know what you’re saying. I just don’t buy it. Most people distinguish agnosticism and atheism for a reason; they’re referring to different views of the world. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic doesn’t know. You say yourself that the overwhelming majority of atheists would count themselves as agnostics under your definition. Which leaves the two words as nearly redundant. With the common usage, we keep the important distinction between someone who believes there are no gods and someone who doesn’t have a strong preference.

Btw, I’m pretty close to being blitzed, so if I don’t respond 🤷‍♂️

You're still using agnostic as it is widely misunderstood. You can be firmly agnostic about a particular proposition even if you believe the proposition is true, even if you hardly have a doubt in your mind that it is true. It's a separate philosophical issue that comes up most often in discussions about faith and belief, especially belief in the supernatural. For example if we were talking about reincarnation. I do not believe in it, but I don't think I can know that reincarnation doesn't happen.

By the way, Russells tea pot is a simple thought experiment that is intended to illustrate to morons like you that the burden of proof IS on you. It's not a clever debate trick or whatever.

It’s certainly a trick. It’s used to say that you don’t need any arguments against a position if you aren’t impressed by the arguments in favor of that position. Except that the example glosses over the fact that we do have arguments against the claim. We know where teapots come from, we know what it would take to put a teapot in orbit around Mars, and we know that we should have heard about it being done. A better example would be the existence of the atom. Would it have been appropriate to reject the atom just because Democritus’ argument for it was poor?

It’s used to say that you don’t need any arguments against a position if you aren’t impressed by the arguments in favor of that position.

You literally don't and that is exactly the point of the thought experiment. You can replace teapot with anything you want. The rest of your argument is just dumb blathering. Yes it would have been "appropriate" not to believe in atomic theory in ancient Greece. That's what a standard of evidence entails you fucking monkey.

Wow, rude. Why don’t you have a glass of whiskey? 🥃

then congratulations you're literally an agnostic-atheist. you utter fucking retard

I think you're confused. I know that I am. That is precisely my point.

When someone self identifies as ' agnostic ' it's a safe bet they're either a giant pussy or don't know what it means or both.

I know that I am [an agnostic-atheist]

https://i.imgur.com/Bvvfuto.gif

Because "atheist" will do just fine. The only people who call themselves agnostic do so because they think atheist is too confrontational or they think being agnostic means they occupy a middle ground that doesn't exist.

See? This right here is why definitions actually matter.

I don't need to announce my epistemology in every conversation about atheism.

There's literally nothing wrong with knowing that you don't and can't know something.

And I never said that. In fact that sounds nothing close to what any atheist I know of would say.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/drama] Autistic Agnostic Argument

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Atheists are giant wankers.

By allowing women to blog freely, the west has de facto entered a matriarchy that disincentivizes its men.

Its written by a man.

Clicking the links is for fags.

"""""""Man"""""""" you mean.

This disgusting faggot's self-loathing disqualifies him from any label even remotely associated with masculinity.

tl;dr: There are some bad things about a society dominated by men, so let's have a society dominated by women, instead

Flawless logic.

I'm sure the reason I can't name a single matriarchal society is because of how wildly successful they are.

They're so successful they've developed cloaking technology to keep away CAVEMEN like you.

Matriarchal societies wouldn't be any more or less successful than patriarchal societies.

This is a statement so retarded that I have to wonder if you're trolling. In this hypothetical matriarchal society the traditional family structure as we know it could not exist. The transfer of wealth to younger generations would look completely different. Mating rituals would be completely different. The list goes on and on. What gives you any confidence at all that they would be equally successful? Especially in light of the fact that nothing stands in the way of a matriarchal society forming, well... putting aside human biology and the fact that a matriarchal society would be a soft target for a superior patriarchal society to overthrow and enslave.

In this hypothetical matriarchal society the traditional family structure as we know it could not exist.

And a new "family structure" would form.

The transfer of wealth to younger generations would look completely different.

Ok?

Mating rituals would be completely different.

Ok?

What gives you any confidence at all that they would be equally successful?

What gives you the confidence to say they wouldn't be?

Especially in light of the fact that nothing stands in the way of a matriarchal society forming, well... putting aside human biology and the fact that a matriarchal society would be a soft target for a superior patriarchal society to overthrow and enslave.

I mean, women being oppressed for the vast majority of human history probably has something to do with why we've never seen a real society like this.

Also, why would a matriarchal society be an easy target for overthrow and enslavement?

Distribution of IQ scores and physical strength along with all of human history gives my assertion a little more credibility than just being mentally impaired by liberalism.

Do you think men don't exist in a matriarchal society?

You strike me as the kind of guy that's profoundly ignorant, misinformed, stupid, but because of youtube and internet right-wing Pseudo-Intellectualism, you've convinced yourself the opposite is true.

You strike me as the kind of guy that's profoundly ignorant, misinformed, stupid, but because of youtube and internet left-wing Pseudo-Intellectualism

literally you

No, because unlike you, I've picked up a book.

/r/iamverysmart

you spend all day getting mad that daddy don won and not mommy

you don't strike me as being too smart

The Internet contains overwhelmingly the largest wealth of information of any base of knowledge in human history. I don't think your insult stings quite as much as you think.

Both of u r retards

South Park neutral as a matter of fact. Got my PHD in South Park studies.

Ok?

Especially in light of the fact that nothing stands in the way of a matriarchal society forming, well... putting aside human biology

There are many cases of 'traditional' cultures where women held/hold an important or somewhat dominant role in group affairs.

Thank you for that highly stimulating contribution.

Not an argument.

So some women had servants to kill spiders and open jars, so what?

Nah, there's a bunch of ethnic groups in India where men can't own property and shit.

I read a bit about these societies for socio, worst I read was a tribe where women were free to sleep around when they visited their parent's while the husband waited back home. Hell, the head of the family in most 'matriarchal' societies is the maternal uncle.

Which ethnic groups specifically? Because I'm pretty sure that'd be illegal today. Just like marriage by capture was made illegal and thus withered away.

Hot. Where are they located and how's the immigration process like?

Take me with you.

He’s entirely right though. The success and failure of any society is contingent on so many factors switching out which gender is dominant in the society won’t alter the fact that the disappearance of regular monsoons is what likely ended the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Just sayin’.

historical evidence suggests matriarchies fail early and often.

Native Americans were matriarchal

They didn't get very far passed the bow and arrow and sharp stick though

Some tribes were. Most weren't

we'd be living in the cleanest tidiest caves you've ever seen!

I can name a few. But honestly, I'm not sure if their lack of success was by random chance or for a reason.

Half of reddits political scene is trying to get people to "try something new" by overhauling society for an experimental decade or two

I mean whats so unreasonable about that/s

They're free to go start one on an island or something. I'm sure a bunch of soyboys would volunteer to join them.

Might as well give 'em a turn at the wheel, right? *shrug*

Humans fucked it up. Why not elect a spider president?

How dare his weak toxicly masculine father die of cancer and leave his mother to struggle. Men need to stop.

I am sure the other arbitrary caste of human once in power will never fuck up like the previous one. *Look pointedly at africa.*

I've long favored synching fiscal policy with the rhythms of mother moon.

Interest rates go up, interest rates go down...you can't explain that!

“In 2017, the worldwide average of women in parliament is only 23.3 percent — a 6.5 percent gain over the past decade,” Glaususz writes. “That gain is significant: Caprioli’s data shows that, as the number of women in parliament increases by 5 percent, a state is five times less likely to use violence when confronted with an international crisis (perhaps because women are more likely to use a ‘collective or consensual approach’ to conflict resolution).”

More likely it's the other way around - states that are unlikely to be involved in violent international crises feel safe enough to vote for women.

Keep in mind that the US only kicked off the Libyan War that also kicked off the migrant crisis because Clinton, Samantha Power, and some other foreign affairs banshee nagged Obama into it. It was held up as a bold feminist power move at the time too, lol. So much for enlightened matriarchal feminism.

Until you've ever been in a household or workplace headed by a woman and see that they can also have issues with anger, incompetence, cronyism, and bullying.

This is what happens in the matriarchy

While your great-grandfather was down in the pits hefting lumps of coal, great-grandmother was being puked on, screamed at, disobeyed, and run ragged. Chances are she seldom complained, even when old Gramps came home sloshed on Friday evening, having spunked half his wages on ale. Few if any tasks are as relentlessly taxing as parenthood

Going out on a limb here but I would think one of those tasks is hefting lumps of coal

And as long as you're playing to stereotypes, the odds are that what Gramps actually did after shifting sixteen tons of coal per day was come home on Friday night and plop his unopened pay packet down on the kitchen table for great-grandmother to take what she needed for housekeeping and rent and - possibly - hand him back a shilling or two of his earnings.

Or Gramps might have been on a fishing trawler out of sight of land all through the season before returning home - if his ship made it back - to do the pay-packet-on-kitchen-table routine.

Or Gramps might have been in any of the other twenty or so most-likely-to-kill-you occupations in order to put bread on the table for the wife and kids, because parenthood may be taxing but without someone putting food on the table it's fucking impossible.

Of course, after great-grandfather retired from hefting lumps of coal, odds are good that he spent his last year or two coughing up black spit incessantly before his lungs finally said "nope, we're not doing this any more" and he croaked fifteen years too young.

Women. They're just relentlessly oppressed, I tell you.

Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.

Play All | Info | Get me on Chrome / Firefox

What a bender.

While your great-grandfather was down in the pits hefting lumps of coal, great-grandmother was being puked on, screamed at, disobeyed, and run ragged. Chances are she seldom complained, even when old Gramps came home sloshed on Friday evening, having spunked half his wages on ale. Few if any tasks are as relentlessly taxing as parenthood; none, surely, demand such a versatile repertoire of empathy, dedication, and forbearance. Certainly none have such negative repercussions for society when performed badly.

That lazy cunt having a good time while the poor women had to bend over to pick up toys

"Chances are she seldom complained," because God knows no-one ever heard of such a thing as a nagging wife.

Shit I cant bully the author cause he is good looking

ugh hate when that happens

Much of what we see as the runaway anger of modern democratic discourse of today, with its constituent backlashes against every social justice movement, can be framed as the resentment of those accustomed to enjoying privilege seeing that privilege gradually eroded

Say dumb shit

Get called moron

" oh my god why are theybso angry "

Everytime