Why Are Women Being Educated?

And you are still single?

 

You clearly didn't look at them.

 

Why is he 37, unmarried(or unattached) and unhappy? Is it because he promotes rape fantasies and no sentient woman could trust him?

 

He'll likely remain single..........

 

No, it's childbirth that does that.

 

I did I rather liked the bald one, but I would be respectful whatever they look like. I do not judge women by their appearance.

 

Loose women, hahaha. You sound like an Old Testament preacher saying things like that.

 

lol, yeah right. If this thing started walking towards you I'm sure you'd have a ton of judgments floating through your head:

 

No. That breaks the box at the seams but it doesn't destroy the balloons within.

 

I can't understand the pleasure in having sex with an incapable drunken woman. Sex is about two people, not one.

 

.

 

It's not 1940 any more.

 

Ahhhh, have you never heard of masturbation? Of course, you have. And do you understand the logic behind its use? So really, the only question left to answer is if planting a woman who's drunk is better than pulling yourself. I figure it's up to each and every one of us to make that decision, in real time.

 

This woman has lymphoedema.

 

Funny person.

 

This is bigoted sexist speech. Implying women are too stupid to have sex while drunk yet nobody says that about men.

 

I do try.

 

In Sweden, a man who has sex with a woman who is drunk has committed "rape" because her control is considered to have been disadvantaged during the event - but if the man is also drunk it is assumed that he is in full control of his actions and therefore "guilty"!

 

Don't get me started on the swedes

 

"thing" !

 

That kind of attitude is why HIV is still spreading.

 

Pfffftt

 

We both know it was not a threat from the government. A journalist submitted a petition to Ban Trump from the UK. The UK Parliament Petitions Committee is required to debate any petition that receives more than 100,000 signatures. The petition had 574,000 signatures as of the date the debates started. (I don't know where you pulled that 1 million signatures statistic.) The Petitions Committee debated banning Trump because it was bound by its own rules to do so. Notably, the debate went nowhere, and Trump was not banned. Furthermore, even if Parliament had debated a Trump ban that was proposed by members of Parliament, that would not constitute a threat by the UK government because members of Parliament do not have authority to act on behalf of the UK government. That's why, as I said before, it would be entirely different if the UK equivalent of DHS had threatened to ban Trump. That would constitute a threat from the UK government.

It's ironic how you started this exchange by claiming I was being disingenuous about the rape on private property claim.

It's actually a pretty important distinction. You disparaged the UK on the basis that it had threatened to ban Trump. But all that happened was a bunch of members debated a petition to ban Trump because that petition had received the requisite signatures for debate. To say this constitutes a threat by the government is asinine. The UK government never threatened to ban Trump. That's a fact. Try to spin that all you want.

Wrong. That's not what I said. I think the UK government officials legitimately did not know that Roosh intended his article as satire at the time they made the decision to ban him. Probably because he didn't initially have disclaimers on his article. (I wish I could investigate that further, but Roosh has set up his website so I can't retrieve what it used to say. That leads me to believe he doesn't want people to see what it used to say.)

Contrary to your assertion, I'm not saying that the government's letter is proof of Roosh's actual intent. I'm inferring his intent by his idiocy, as indicated by his half-witted, unsophisticated views.

Again, this is disingenuous. Parliament had no choice but to entertain the petition because it met the 100,000 requisite votes (5x over)

Why put quotes around that? Are you actually quoting something?

Bro the fact that you think you're right doesn't make you right. The UK government never threatened to ban trump.

 

You already lost this point. Keep flailing though. From your own archived google page that you linked in the thread:

"UK Leaders Call for Trump Ban."
"MPs Call for Trump Ban."
"Donald Trump threatens to withdraw his UK investments if Parliament bans him."
"Chris May, a senior labor backbencher has written to May urging her to go further and ban Trump from entering the UK."
"Donald Trump Ban Debated in UK Parliament."
"Banned in Britain? Parliament Debates Keeping Trump Out."

Your nitpicking of whether and who had what authority to carry out such a ban, where or how it originated, or what procedure was required by whom is thoroughly irrelevant (and annoyingly, transparently disingenuous) to whether a credible threat existed, and whether it was a threat fairly described as a government threat. The FACT is that May could have banned Trump instantly with the stroke of a pen. Nowhere in ANY of the reporting was any indicia that the threat by the UK GOVERNMENT to ban Trump wasn't serious, or was mocking.

For the point I was making, it doesn't matter whether the threat was carried out (it wasn't) or what stage in the procedural chain it reached, whether the government at large "tried" to ban Trump. Your intransigence on this dead loser of a point is one of the funniest and saddest things I've ever seen here on PF... explains handily what thought process led you to believe all the fake conservative trolling threads you post contribute anything at all other than filler and nuisance.

The point remains, why should we give credibility to arbitrary bans of internet bloggers by the UK government when the exact same people have threatened to ban the POTUS due to a mere policy disagreement on no grounds other than PC? No reason whatsoever to give such credence to out of control PC loons over the direct words of the blogger in question.

Wrong. Although the elements of the UK government seeking to ban Trump were utter fools in doing so, I disparaged -your- estimation that we should take their word in banning Roosh for "hate speech" over his own numerous declarations that the "hate speech" in question was satire. My reasoning for discounting the UK ban of Roosh is that they are so hidebound with the PC disease that they did in fact threaten to ban the POTUS over a policy disagreement that doesn't affect U.S./UK relations in any way whatsoever... all fuel for the altar of PC. Pure frivolity, why would anyone take any bans they DO issue at face value without serious scrutiny? No one should.

Oh, has he "set up his website" that way? to hide something? ROFL. So dishonest at every turn. It is astounding to me, whether it's you or the UK PC police, that grown adults would take someone at their word who advocated legalizing rape on private property. Here are some of the choice "tells" from the article (emphasis added):

"I carefully examined the articles on Salon, Buzzfeed, and Huffington Post that were written by professional journalists who pursue truth and justice over mass hysteria and delirium."
"What I’ve gathered from the words of these future Pulitzer Prize winners..."
"Thankfully, a man only has to be told the phrase “rape is bad” at some point after puberty by an overweight feminist to definitively stop his future brutal and bloody rape career."
"Bad encounters are sure to occur, but these can be learning experiences for the poorly trained woman so she can better identify in the future the type of good man who will treat her like the delicate flower that she believes she is."
"It turns out that we don’t need more laws, policies, and university propaganda that treat every man like a criminal and every woman like a mild retardate—we need more common sense that can only come from making rape legal."

Note also, that this was the same guy who trolled the whole leftosphere by announcing he was going to stage "pro rape rallies" (lulz) in hotbeds of PC... of course they were "cancelled" but the troll was 10/10 as brain dead leftist outlets took him seriously, female boxers were going to show up, Toronto banned him, etc. Another great troll just like the one in question.

1. AGAIN, "half-witted and unsophisticated views" are not reasonable grounds for taking a grossly inflammatory statement about legalizing rape seriously, but 2. Yeah, you did say that we should take the UK ban at face value while rejecting Roosh's numerous disclaimers. And AGAIN, the truth of it all is at 6:30 in this video... it's not acting:



Learn to pick your battles, you are lousy at it.