alpha chicks and beta chicks

She may still be arrested which doesn’t change what I have stated multiple times that she should be arrested. I, the bigot, would have arrested her, but also him for excessive force. When you, the able bodied man, strike a child, an elderly person, or a woman so hard as to knock them out and dislodge a tooth, you better be protecting your life, not your pride. Duh.

The police and judge determine excessive force, but never fear, most judges are still male, so misogyny in the court room may save Caleb yet.

Victim blaming. How ironic.

It’s official, Brantley’s arrest. :astonished: His female attorney entered his not guilty plea. Will they film the court proceedings for this one?

He’s toast. Guess we’ll have to wait and see. Your complaints will keep me informed Mr., thanks in advance.

I was addressing everybody who thinks that you can start a fight and then cry that the person you’re attacking should go easy on you and have mercy when you begin to lose.

Words cut deeper than knives…says the person who’s clearly never been stabbed with a knife.

Autsider/Mr.

That no mercy philosophy is a good vehicle (choo, choo!) for population control, the perpetrator of a physical attack has chosen their own death sentence in essence. I’m down with that. Once you cross the line into any kind of confrontational physical contact, the victim has the right, the obligation even, to put down, as in kill, the perpetrator by whatever means are available and the right to pursue this no mercy course of action until the perpetrator is dead. All aboard the crazy train!

This is the most participation from you in awhile. I’m glad my words don’t affect you much. :evilfun:

Finally we agree on something.

Knocking out the attacker may be sufficient, but the problem here is 1) He/she could feign being knocked out in order to catch you off guard, 2) He/she may be vengeful and try to kill you days after the fight is over. I prefer to destroy my enemies when I have the chance to prevent 1 or 2. It’s just the rational course of action. A system which would force you to prioritize the life of the person trying to harm and possibly murder you over your own life is corrupt and obviously favors instigators, which no healthy system does.

If you want to have a nice fight with somebody, ask for their consent. Then, if he/she consents, you can agree on the conditions of the fight, and if you do, you can then proceed to fight.

What you want to do, Wendy, is pervert (invert) the natural hierarchy of things. You want to be able to physically assault those stronger than you, then when you begin losing the fight you want to have the option to cry “mercy” and demand the other party goes easy on you, and if they don’t, then an even stronger party (military/police) would intervene on your behalf. On the other hand, those stronger than you should not be permitted to impose their authority over you and other weaklings. It would result in a weak society as it doesn’t provide incentive for those who are strong to defend it, since they would be forced in a position of subordination to those who are weak.

Myself, I’m in favor of the natural hierarchy of things. Children and women are property of men, men have the authority over women and children and the latter two have to be obedient, but men also have the responsibility to protect them, and of course, not to abuse their authority. The women/children would recognize men as superior in strength and wouldn’t even think of picking fights with them cause they would get their ass kicked, and the men would recognize women/children as weaker and thus treat them more gently than other males (unless women and children attempted to usurp male authority, of course, in which case they would be quickly made an example of).

In a decent society such degenerate infighting would be extremely rare anyway, so that’s all I have to say.

The natural hierarchy of humanity, being at the top, is to use discretion to curb violence, not to surrender one’s sanity to it. If brute force trumps intelligence in this day and age, humanity hasn’t evolved one iota.

Autsider wrote

I do? I thought we were agreed on the use of deadly force. The way the system is now should be changed to if you start it, I can end it. Men don’t think any women can end it, that’s the funny part. :evilfun: The men who would tell you different are dead. Choo,choo! This would apply to all persons regardless of their relationships.

Men are still…still pining for their harem of childbearing slaves? =D> :laughing: You were born too late, those days are gone.

That’s actually ironic, because that’s also something I’d imagine a radical Zionist jew would say when he advocates for the total annihilation of Germany.

About humanity evolving… viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192780

Slaves? You could equally so call men slaves because in the system I propose they would have more responsibilities than the “childbearing slaves” and would be the ones who would have to risk their lives to defend the system. But that doesn’t matter to you since you’re a gynocentric feminist, right?

In the end, it’s quite simple: Either you make your society more patriarchal, or you get conquered by a patriarchy.

dailystormer.com/austria-pre … amophobia/

Advocating for feminism/liberalism in practice amounts to advocating for a foreign patriarchy to conquer you, so “those days” will always return.

So?

Pandora, girl attacks guy, guy defends himself, and you jump into the conversation talking about the Jews?

Weird.

I do not claim to be a feminist. I am something other with higher expectations from women.

Since men do not respect women, never have never will, women need to get serious about their situations in civilizations where their abilities have always been and will always be marginalized, where their very natures are seen as a liability if not a joke. It’s time for women to expand their horizons and work towards being as capable as they are able which isn’t happening…yet. As a woman, I’m not even sure what all women are capable of.

While I understand all too well why feminism began, at this point, women are squandering their new freedoms by believing that men are even capable of appreciating the woman as a whole. Men appreciate the pussy, the maid, the eye candy and some appreciate the mother within, what more is there?

Both sexes seem delusional in their beliefs about each other. Biologically the sexes are designed to unite to reproduce offspring, and a women’s energy may be inclined towards a submission to a man’s energy but both energies are approaching each other with negative objectives offering negative reviews.

It’s time for women to make improvements by applying their abilities more rigorously to practical matters. Time to see what women can do when they set some serious intention to it. It would be glorious to behold women who are even more capable, more confident.

I don’t claim heroism but yes, I am all for restriction of choice. Women are chaotic entities, their choice needs to be restricted by an agent of order (man) for the sake of both of them but moreso for the sake of their children and society.

You’re definitely a feminist whether you claim to be one or not. You have been taught by feminists to value women according to masculine standards, and when women fail to live up to them you see it as a problem to be fixed. You’ve been taught to hate and reject your own femininity.

The same way Bruce Jenner has grown to hate and reject his masculinity:

Of course, men can never be as womanly as women, nor can women ever be as manly as men. But freaks will continue to try, and fail, then blame everything else but themselves and their own limitations.

Yeah, Bruce Jenner might PRETEND he is a woman, and he might even be called woman of the year by some retarded magazine, doesn’t change what he really is - a perverted faggot. Just like some woman might try to be a man, might even succeed in convincing some other clueless retards into thinking she really is one, but it doesn’t make her one.

The masculinization of women and feminization of men is dysfunctional and doesn’t accomplish anything good.

Women have always been too dependent on men, a brainwashing perpetrated by men in a system that men solely controlled for thousands of years. But what’s to be expected when the greatest threat to a woman is a man. “Need us or we’ll rape and kill you! Oh shit, it doesn’t matter, we’re going to rape and kill you anyways as we always have,” promised man. That will never change. Women are killed by men more than any other cause, men kill more women than all the current deadly diseases combined, yet men complain that women are chaotic. :-k

Thanks for amusing me, Autsider. =D>

One difference between a typical feminist and myself is that the feminists believe that cooperation between sexes is possible under a patriarchal system with a face lift. I do not.

Autsider,

What are feminine standards as opposed to their masculine counterpart?

Nature is cruel and indifferent towards both sexes. Just like there are disadvantages to being a woman, there are disadvantages to being a man. Unlike you, I’m not here to play the “who can portray themselves as more of a victim” game. It’s a very feminine thing to do, you know.

You said I wasn’t feminine, now I am, make up your chaotic mind please. Death is a disadvantage, one perpetrated by the natural world surrounding humanity seems less reprehensible.

Mind answering the question?

While it may be true that they have the force of personality to dominate you if they so choose, you have to ask, would they want that for their relationship? Or would they want something different?