Equating the understanding of social and biological repercussions to life to whining. Here we have a beaming example of decadence.
Whilst you reject/alienate a percentage of the population with alternative values - my dear moralistic hypocrite.
Yes, I would have to be - in so far as it does not lead to life down the road. The denial of life is not the only issue, I've already made that point - which you didn't pick up on.
You don't have anything to argue against charity breeding mediocrity. Didn't expect anything different.
Indeed that wouldn't be the right way to approach it. And your opinions as well would blacklist yourself amongst many, many women world wide. Furthermore, many of the women you know are part of a population that is declining massively due to not giving life. It becomes a matter persuasion and education. The war of natural selection is on, not over - and the ideals you hold will only lead to decadence, then submission to those who instead valued strengthening themselves - but Ive already gone over this and clearly you don't care for the retention of info. So with that, enjoy your thread... ;)
The only problem I see is your rejection/alienation of a percentage of the population
while in the same breath condemning their activity saying it "denies life"
Blowjobs "deny life" too, are you against those?
Blowjobs "deny life" too, are you against those?
See, that's the beauty of natural selection. It's doing what it does right now, whether I have an opinion on it or not. Your idea of eliminating charity programs is unrealistic (ie ludicrous). You're losing your edge; just go with it.
If you were to voice your opinions or "critical thinking" amongst just about every woman I know personally, you would probably end up on their blacklist (that's the "do-not-fuck-much-less-talk-to" list), thereby making your chances of procreation pretty slim. How's that for natural selection?
Comment