u mad? :crackup:Boilermaker said:Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning
u mad? :crackup:Boilermaker said:Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning
This post right here is exactly why she made that video the OP posted. You're taking the position he's a selfish **** for not putting his life on the line to help the woman who is really the one at fault for the kids dying. This is pretty horrible of you to make the guy the bad guy by not placing blame squarely where it belongs--on the woman--and by expecting, yes EXPECTING, men to be subservient to women.Boilermaker said:Whatever happened to good old common sense? Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning while they could have been sipping hot chocolate in a warm living room enjoying the storm, rather than drowning in it. And we are discussing how "the white American male is going down the sh!t hole" here starting from this story?
You guys need to relax. Go out with your wives. Have a glass of wine, settle down, don't be mad
Is Danger following this discussion? What's his take?
I agree that next of kin is a primary focus, however, as much as I will always advance my own love of Europe and European history, culture and bloodlines, I would help any fellow man, woman or child in distress.... we are all human....im gonna take a beta whack for that, but the instinct (however much Burroughs tries his Nietchze-istic superman ideals) is to preserve human life. This is not just through philosophy/religeous ideals, we have evolved this way.Jitterbug said:I thought you'd never bring that up. In your manly DNA, as coded by nature and evolution, you would only provide protection to women related to you by blood or women you're banging and thus carrying or caring for your children. You would never provide protection to women you're not related to, not currently banging and especially not women with children sired by a male stranger. Your natural manly masculinity would in fact urge you to spear them in the guts so your own children would have more foods to eat and less competition for resources, survival and mating when they grow up. Your nature as a man would've done a lot worse than what this man did and you are condemning him for. You (and our ancestors) did not survive and spread the genes this far by being kind & nice, I'm afraid.
The noble gesture (caring for unknown women and children) is born of civilization, not nature. And it is only heroic and chivalric if it is not a duty and not expected of men. If you're expected to sacrifice yourself for strangers, you're being treated as a slave.
Your way off on this one mate, the "selfless disposable man at all costs" theme is exactly the type spoonfed bullsh!t burroughs is exposing. That sh!t only flew and was valid when men actually had the rewards of the past to counter being disposable as opposed to modern day contempt. Your obviously invested with the whole "your all just puzzies" rebuttal to save face but you really should watch that youtube clip and try to think outside the box.TonyBaloney said:Now get back to knitting you bunch of big girls blouses.
And burroughs, dont ever try and advise the board about masculinity anymore.
Think you manginas are just scared of death.....better to burn out than fade away.
Do not be too easy. If you are too easy to get, she will not want you. If you are too easy to keep, she will lose interest in you. If you are too easy to control, she will not respect you.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Where do you live exacly ? Are you married ?While you are on the net spewing hostility, burroughs... other men, men you like to insult, are probably in bed with women who love them, living the way humans were meant to -- with families, friends, security, and happiness. When you think about that... does your philosophy feel superior -- or empty?
i lol'edBurroughs said:Boilermaker u mad? :crackup:
You're the biggest biyach here everyone knows that
now go away and let grown folks talk.
Not for me, maybe "some guys" but I just short-term girls "who likes" me, knowing all along that I'd never marry her, I'd never have her for much longer than a year, because I already see her flaws. I just use her for sex. Now, if I meet an Old World woman, who "likes" and I can Seee knows to keep her mouth shut, knows the traditional old world placement for women as "helpers" not an inbetween helper/leader and definitely not The leader in/of my life. No, that's My job traditionally. It will Never work over the long haul, a woman leading my life, telling ME what to do. I can't have that, even if she's a 10, and the sex is top notch. Over the long haul, if she "likes me" I must see from the get-go that she's uninitiated/unstamped or imprinted with today's American societal thoughts on today's woman's role, which is to somehow lead.backbreaker said:then they will meet a girl who likes them and forgot all of it beucase she's different. it's like everyone hates congress but no one hates their congressman.