Women Cause War

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

Women are not heartless, but mindless. The reason they want wealth is to satiate their need. Women are easily bored and require greater and greater stimulation (hedonism.) They are mentally unstable. This is why they dont marry needy males, because they dont want anyone to touch a slice of the pie but themselves. The ideal situation for a female is to marry a mangina who works 24/7, rarely has sex with her and provides her with an infinite amount of pie and can take a large amount of emotional abuse/turmoil.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

This thread of Traji’s, is basically a fail, but he or she has had 3 years to improve their philosophy, so I’m open to their comments. Still, I linger on what gender Traji is, I am not sure. Kris said she wanted the cock, so perhaps Tra-ji is a Tra-ni, post-op (no cocko.)

The reason this thread is rubbish is because Traji more or less posts weak truths and half truths. For example, if Traji would take the time to observe chimpanzee mating behavoirs, he would see that fistfights are not “to the death.” Also, wars are not fought for females, it is something chimpanzees due. Tribe on tribe violence is a seperate mechanism than interpersonal duels over women, which happen often and are nonfatal. Rest assured, in a male only tribe of chimpanzees, violence would surely occur.

[Moreno]

@Trajicomic

@Moreno

Women cause war by being projection screens for men’s hallucinations. Instead of dealing with their fears of sexual inadequacy or not being lovable, men make assumptions about what women really want and then structure society to reflect this as much as they can. Men have done incredible damage by avoiding feeling their fears, transforming the anxiety into both action and anger and seeing other men as rivals and blaming women for not loving them. This huge freight train of momentum gets built up in society and men rush away from their fears without remembering this is the impetus and then blame women for the horrible sense of panic underlying their machinations.

How dare women exist and be desirable!

You’re stuck in your selfish, egotistical delusions.

No, you are. I’m rubber, you’re glue.

You have yet to see how men are desirable to women, and for which reasons. Killing, raping, and murdering, in a woman’s name, is what wets the human female’s crotch faster than a garden hose.

I haven’t found this necessary in my sex life. I am sure there are some women who need this to get wet, but I think you are universalizing strangely.

And I know, what women want. Women want violence, death, destruction, in their name! So don’t you fucks dare tell me you “know” something when you don’t know jack shit. If you truly disagreed with me, then you’d present some sort of rebuttal of SOME KIND. Instead you know every word I’m telling you is correct, is true, is “evil”, and it is evil because it’s true, and it’s true because it’s evil.

Wait, I am supposed to present an ‘argument’ to rebut your statement of opinion? Let’s see you make an argument first. How about some research into women getting turned on by rape, killing and destruction. You know that this is in any way a general pattern.

Truth is evil, sometimes. And many more pathetic minds here will never accept this absolute fact as a remote possibility. But your ignorance is my advantage. And I can use this knowledge against your romantic idealism. I can use your ignorance about life, facts, and truth, all against you.

Romantic idealism? If I don’t believe, say, all dogs secretly kill babies, does that mean I romanticize dogs? Or idealize them?

Not everyone who disagrees with your negative romanticism is living in a dreamworld, dependant on the glorification of whatever you negatively glorify. You have the nuance of a teenage boy who thinks all adults are scum because he can’t borrow daddy’ car.

Kriswest even admitted that I am true. And she knows best. So you’re all wrong, to disagree with Kriswest. You’re not intelligent enough to know how to compete with your naive, childish ideals.

[/quote]

[/quote]
You are right, I have no idea how to compete with my own ideals. In fact I would consider that a category error. I can compete against you or a basketball player, say, but competing against my ideals - which are not relevent to this thread - is an activity I cannot even imagine. What do me and my ideals compete in? Chess, marathon running? I am not sure ideals can run or even indicate moves in chess.

And you may be true, thought I suspect you mean ‘right’, but so far you have not shown you are correct about this issue.

Life is not a roll playing game, why don’t you wait until your brain finishes developing.

[zinnat]

Women per se do not cause war. It is merely a lame excuse of some men either to justify war or their lust.

It is the desire of men for women that sometimes cause war, though it is not the only reason for wars.

In Hinduism, it is said that there are only three reasons for wars; Jar (gold/wealth), Joru (women) and Zameen (land). But, after deduction, it is only either ignorance or greed that causes wars. Rest are only excuses made up by war mongerars.

With love,
Sanjay

[DreamsOfSugaryInsani (DreamsOfSugaryInsanity)]

@Trajicomic

Men don’t like dying and killing. But war is necessary. War is a fight over resources. But men do not live lavishly. Men live poor, usually.

Women cause war because women want to kill off other groups of women. War involves murder, often of other women and children. So if women really “hated war” and “wanted peace”, then women would prevent them from happening. But they don’t. Women are greedy and want lots of excess resources. Women want to drive their infants around in SUV, gas guzzling road tanks. Women are driven by instinct. Women want as much resources for her children as she can squeeze out of a man. Sometimes what we have is not enough. This is when women want men to go to war for them, for oil or gold in far away lands, so that men can steal these resources from other people, and give it to the women and the children.

Women are heartless and actually love war. They love the thought of men fighting and dying, for them. Stealing, raping, and killing, for them. Because women are simple beasts who need to “feed the greed”. If women truly wanted to “end war”, then they would 1: quit being so damn greedy, but they can’t because that’s their instinct, 2: quit feeling horny for violent, dominant men who kill other people, but they can’t because that’s their instinct, 3: keep their legs closed to soldiers and murderers, but they can’t, for reason number 2.

Final word, women love soldiers. Women “love a man in uniform”. Why? Because the military uniform signals that this man is a rapist, thief, and murderer. But the uniform is “covers” that all up. Women intuitively know what the uniform means though. And women get wet for this. Women want men to kill in their name.

If women were less greedy and malicious, then the world would be a better place with less war. The problem is, women are secret murderers who inspire their men to kill for them. War is women plotting the death of other women. That’s what it’s truly about.

I wouldn’t be surprised if I get in trouble for speaking this TRUTH on a PHILOSOPHY forum. But whatever, I’m done here, enjoy.

I know this post is a bit long, but I encourage you to read it all the way through.
First of all, arbiter of truth, tell me more.
And second of all, as a traditional conservative, I find your outlook on war and the state troubling, to say nothing of your view on gender relations.
Now, I’m going to go ahead and guess that you don’t know what the horseshoe theory is. Put simply, the horseshoe theory is the idea that two ends of any spectrum will be identical in all but name. This can be observed in both nature and politics. Just as alkaline and acid have similar effects, so do the extremes of any debate or ideology. For example, look at the Black Panters and the KKK. At first glance, they look like opposites, but when you look closer, you realize that they are simply two sides of the same coin. The former is a racist group that hates white people, the latter is a racist group that hates black people. Their rhetoric is nearly identical, with the only difference being that the demographics are reversed.
The same principle applies to feminism and MGTOW. While MGTOW claims to be the opposite of feminism, they are, in reality, simply the flip side of the gender politics coin. Radical feminism advocates that women should not have relationships with men, and that men are immoral. MGTOW simply reverses this rhetoric, flipping the genders and throwing it back at them. It’s like Nietzsche said: be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
In short, this is why traditional conservatives and MRA’s (both groups that I proudly identify with) are better suited to solving the feminist problem than MGTOW. Instead of redressing the enemy’s dogma and throwing it back at them, we make our own arguments. And our stance on the matter is that, put simply, everything you just said is bullshit. The reality of the matter is that war has nothing to do with gender relations.
Now, you claim that the cause of war is “women plotting to kill other women”, but unsurprisingly, you provide no evidence. You simply state it as gospel, just like a feminist would. A feminist in your shoes would probably blame war on “toxic masculinity”, which, similar to your theory, puts the blame on an entire gender, all the while providing about as much evidence for her statements as you just did. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The simple reality of war is that it is not connected to sexuality. War is an engrained part of our genetics, and has been since long before mankind. This can be observed today in chimpanzees, our closest relatives, and the closest analogue to our ape ancestors. Wild chimps, with no means of communication outside simple body language and nonverbal noises (no sign language, and obviously no speech, which precludes any sort of conspiracy) have been observed waging war on other tribes, similar to primitive tribal warfare among humans. Yes, there is rape involved, but just like with humans, males are the majority of both aggressors and victims. Males of the rival tribe are killed more often than females. If war was, as you say, a female conspiracy to kill other women, why are men the primary victims, as well as the strategists, instigators and proponents of war?