Wuzzums

What has feminism to do with women and rape? Feminism has as much in common with protecting women as does scientology with science, or islam with peace. Judge actions, not propaganda.

We can never be the bad guy in our own story. Acknowledging this is tantamount to suicide. I myself am not beholden to the state in any way therefore it's easy for me to condemn it. If I were dependent on it, I would see those that try to tear it down as the enemy. We all, if not most of us, have the ability to see the truth but the fact is not all of us want to see the truth. Paul Ekman developed a whole science around liespotting and he can teach a person how to identify a lie with machine-like accuracy in a matter of days. Not many people knocked on his door. People fight wars to hold on to their delusions.

So because people own some land (or have rented land) and they put work into it they should share the profits with people that have no land or didn't help working the land. Why? And your 10k acres analogy is incorrect. Both men stand to lose the same, their lives fullstop. Lives are equal but different. One of them spent time acquiring 10k acres, the other one spent time doing something else. To the latter, the "something else" is equal in value to 10k acres, and vice versa for the first guy.

Just answer this question, if you have "fuck you money", as in so much money you could retire and do anything you want, what would that be?

I remember taking the basic IQ test and getting a 120+ score. Then I took the "hardcore" version of the test which was supposed to be really difficult and getting a 140+ score. I'm very skeptical of online tests. The most accurate tests cost money and they are given and evaluated by a professional.

In many ways after Trump gets elected it will be truly sad, I don't want this presidential race to end. Hours of fun.

So prior to hospitals babies didn't exist?

The free market would easily solve the problem. I would imagine that in the future there would be a lot of people that will have striving careers in CGI child porn. Actual children need not be involved at all making the whole issue merely a problem of aesthetics.

High energy news broadcast:

ISIS has known bases around the world. Sympathizers express themselves freely on social media. There yet hasn't been an identified terrorist that didn't have a criminal record. Because the west has become so lenient towards not offending Muslims, I argue that said Muslims have become quite bold in their actions and with boldness comes recklessness. Terrorists have developed their infrastructure in a permissive populus making them unprepared if we choose to turn on them suddenly.

At the cost of their lives? I thought I was being clear. If you're implying that starting a war with islam would lead to more death and suffering than just submitting then I still choose to live. I cannot sacrifice myself for a hypothetical scenario. Self defense is not immoral, regardless of numbers.

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Trump doesn't care about immigration. The whole issue has to do with illegal immigration.

I'm not american. I'm from Europe and I want Trump to kill all the people that want to kill people.

I have no problem with the death of people that want to kill me first. We (the west) showed them we would rather die than give up our right to free speech. They held us to our standard showing they would rather see us dead than let us talk. The only way this conflict can end is in blood.

But there is no argument. If we have the possibility of solving every human problem then why are there still problems? If "the able" can solve every human issue then why can't they? Doesn't this logically imply they're "not able"? How can we know every problem has solutions if none of us can name said solutions? Truth of the matter we don't live in a world (or universe) where all problems have solutions. Evolution is a fact of life, and evolution implies a constant stream of "problems" living organisms are hit with. It is within human nature to have infinite needs within a finite world. If we had our every need met free of any form of charge then we would simply go extinct as a species. Bill Hicks managed to define the human animal in one simple joke: Adam and Eve sitting in the garden of Eden. Adam days: "Eve, here we are. At one with nature, at one with God, we live forever in harmony with all animals, are madly in love with each other, and our wishes come true the very moment we think of them." To which Eve replies: "Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's just not enough, isn't it."

Technically speaking dogs and cats have perfectly digestible meat, humans too. I think the answer to your question has to do with our prejudices and not logistics.

The general vibe here is that you should make your own decisions. If you think voting helps then go ahead. If you think others should vote then make your case.

Question is, why don't you?

Ripley, Alien series. There have always been strong female characters in fiction but feminists actively ignore them. For instance, feminists/sjw's always bitch about how comics are male driven and whatnot, how little girls have no female superhero role models. They say all of this while Wonder Woman exists and has a huge fanbase. A character as huge as Batman or Superman and it's not hailed as some feminist symbol. It boggles the mind, it makes no sense, until you judge them (sjw's/feminists) by what they do not say. Then it all makes sense why regressives run away from characters that become heroes through merit not "redistribution".

So how bad is your life right now that you want to trade it for living with someone that will cheat on you, become violent with you, argue with you constantly, that will take most of your resources for her and some kid that will grow up to dislike you?

Men have to be the stronger sex, there's a reason why women find alphas more attractive than betas. Alpha traits aren't always in the genes, sometimes they need to be "nurtured" into existence. I don't think it's indifference towards male suffering per se, it's more a case of raising "good" men that are able to pass on their genes. Like for instance let's say I have a son. He is a very sensitive child. I know women aren't attracted to that. Thus all of my base primal instincts scream at me to ignore his suffering and to teach him how to ignore his feelings because my genes want grandchildren so badly. A slave owner cares not about feelings of slaves. It's insane to do so. The term "prejudiced against" is far more apt than "indifferent" because it describes the relationship as it is. Society is not indifferent to the male plight, it actively thrives on it.

Have my imaginary friends been disproven by science and theory?

What do you mean by "separating"?