Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

IMHO (no particular order):

Unfriendly AI
Bioweapon
Nuclear war
Natural disease (perhaps anti-bacteria resistant bug)
Nanotechnology
Climate Change
Deleterious mutation load (most dangerously lowering IQ)

The collapse of our moral character is a good one to put up ther.e

Russia of course

Super Volcanos are pretty cool.

Originally posted by Ultra Instinct.
Russia of course
YES RUSSIA!!! THEY'VE GOT TRUMP AS THEIR PUPPET!!! THEY BASICALLY RUN THE WORLD!!!!!!

I did read today that officials confirmed that Russia was able to scramble our drones. That's a bit troubling.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
IMHO (no particular order):

Unfriendly AI
Bioweapon
Nuclear war
Natural disease (perhaps anti-bacteria resistant bug)
Nanotechnology
Climate Change
Deleterious mutation load (most dangerously lowering IQ)

Probably the AI thing.

Even AI we can control is terrifying because who gets to control it? Some megalomaniacal ******* in government? Some moral busybody who thinks they know best for the world but don't? Someone genuinely malevolent?

Also even if we do control it the right way and bring about the "utopia," how would we cope with a world with infinite instant gratification? Would a constant state of hedonism be properly satisfying? What would such a world spell for the cultivation of human character?

Children thinking they are born with an ACTUAL GENDER!

We gotta put a stop to this nonsense.

Of those choices I'd go for bioweapons or aggressive AI, you can't rule out climate change though, we are long overdue for another ice age after all.

We aint come fully out of the CURRENT Ice Age yet.

Yes we have. The last ice age ended roughly 12,000 years ago, we are now in what is known as an interglacial, a period where the planet warms up and thaws out the ice from the previous ice age (also known as glacials) so that the cycle can begin again.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The collapse of our moral character is a good one to put up ther.e lol dude. I guarantee you wouldn't have any had you not been raised by a religious family in Texas.



Anyway, my prime candidate would be antibiotic resistant bacteria by far. Next as a threat (but not necessarily the end of humanity) would be bioweapons/nuclear war, but it's a big step before my first cadidate.

Originally posted by BackFire
I did read today that officials confirmed that Russia was able to scramble our drones. That's a bit troubling.

Not the full story, they were able to scramble some of our lower end, non weaponized ones. They were not able to scramble any weaponized drones.

I'd say climate change. Everything else is avoidable and with decent foreknowledge (or just plain luck) shouldn't evolve into an issue at all. Climate change is already happening and not nearly enough is being done about it. IIRC we've already gone past the point where its reversible.

It won't wipe out humanity (I don't think) but it may threaten civilisation as we know it.

Internet discussion boards.

Originally posted by Digi
Internet discussion boards. I'll raise you, Social Media!

Did laugh Digi btw! You'll always be one of my favourite posters mate.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Did laugh Digi btw! You'll always be one of my favourite posters mate.



I'll always be one of my favorite posters as well.

Originally posted by Digi


I'll always be one of my favorite posters as well. Haha, we all like our own brand!

Originally posted by samhain
Yes we have. The last ice age ended roughly 12,000 years ago, we are now in what is known as an interglacial, a period where the planet warms up and thaws out the ice from the previous ice age (also known as glacials) so that the cycle can begin again.

That's not correct. Glaciologically, we are still in an ice age because there are still ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. This is the same argument that happens when some people call tomatoes a vegetable when it is botanically a fruit.

When the glaciation disappears from both the northern and southern hemispheres, you can then state that the ice age has finally ended.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
IMHO (no particular order):

Unfriendly AI
Bioweapon
Nuclear war
Natural disease (perhaps anti-bacteria resistant bug)
Nanotechnology
Climate Change
Deleterious mutation load (most dangerously lowering IQ)

Of those:

-Natural disease/virus now

-In the near future I'd add bio-weapons (eg engineered super virus that kills mostly everyone except the incels, but they die out naturally via non procreation)

-Distant future I'd add Climate Change to the list

-Very distant future I'd add AI.

Is your DML a shout-out to the film Idiocracy(2006)?

Originally posted by Robtard
Of those:

-Natural disease/virus now

-In the near future I'd add bio-weapons (eg engineered super virus that kills mostly everyone except the incels, but they die out naturally via non procreation)

-Distant future I'd add Climate Change to the list

-Very distant future I'd add AI.

Is your DML a shout-out to the film Idiocracy(2006)? Except incels, ah, hahahahaha! Love it!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Except incels, ah, hahahahaha! Love it! What is he implying by saying "except incels"? That if some super-virus STD was created undisciplined people like Robtard would die because they couldn't stop themselves from having sex; despite the threat of death?

Originally posted by Kurk
What is he implying by saying "except incels"? That if some super-virus STD was created undisciplined people like Robtard would die because they couldn't stop themselves from having sex; despite the threat of death? Triggered again in 2 posts.

Putinbot 2
Kurk 0

#gottem

Originally posted by Robtard
#gottem hahaha

Where on the #Existential Threats List should we put the Active Attempts by Leftist Fascists to Destroy Western Culture?

What with all the DANGEROUS Triggering they do and claim?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Triggered again in 2 posts.

Putinbot 2
Kurk 0

Be nice. It's not Kurks fault that the sole love of his life is 2D.

Some say Monogamy. Some may Mahogany.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not correct. Glaciologically, we are still in an ice age because there are still ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. When the glaciation disappears from both the northern and southern hemispheres, you can then state that the ice age has finally ended.

No that's when the new ice age begins, you don't think that a new ice age begins the second that the previous one ended do you? That's like saying a basketball game doesn't finish until you start your next game.

Originally posted by samhain
No that's when the new ice age begins, you don't think that a new ice age begins the second that the previous one ended do you? That's like saying a basketball game doesn't finish until you start your next game.

You're wrong. I don't know what to tell you. The correct information is in the post you quoted.

When the glaciation disappears from both the northern and southern hemispheres, you can then state that the ice age has finally ended.

https://i.imgur.com/u3U3uaA.jpg

So how long after that does the new ice age begin then?

I suppose if you're talking about the Quaternary glaciation then we are currently in a interglacial period, but going by the 100,000 years rule, this warming period should have ended about 2000 years ago.

Originally posted by Robtard
#gottem So Robtard is conceding to the fact that he would rather have sex, knowing that there's a chance he could contract a deadly disease, than sit it out for a while?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Unfriendly AI This one first and foremost. It can cause several of the others at a whim if it chooses to, and the rest are solvable in the medium-long run. Malevolent/Indifferent AI is our instant doom, and potentially just over the horizon.

AI isn't doing shit in the near future. People hype it up because few can actually understand what happens behind it.

I'd fear disease; anti-biotic resistant bacteria specifically.

Originally posted by Kurk
I'd fear disease; anti-biotic resistant bacteria specifically.


This could also come as a result of chemical warfare.

People and the mob rule mentality.

Look at the state of the West now. People are willingly given away their freedoms just because someone else thinks differently from them. The older generations would be sick to see this.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The collapse of our moral character is a good one to put up ther.e That would imply we've become less moral over time...

Originally posted by SquallX
People and the mob rule mentality.

Look at the state of the West now. People are willingly given away their freedoms just because someone else thinks differently from them. The older generations would be sick to see this.

That is why the Founding Fathers of the U.S knew to make this county a REPUBLIC. Not a DEMOCRACY!

Originally posted by Kurk
So Robtard is conceding to the fact that he would rather have sex, knowing that there's a chance he could contract a deadly disease, than sit it out for a while?

All diseases are potentially deadly, and all sex risks transmission of disease. If you need to feel completely safe, then you will never have sex.

So SEX it Up Then! Sure you could die but hey, 30 Seconds of Fun versus a extremely shortened life because of it.

If it only takes you 30 seconds, you're doing it wrong.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it only takes you 30 seconds, you're doing it wrong.

Actual Sex is Not Foreplay. Big Diff. The Chase is not the Same as Taking the SHOT!

Still though 30 seconds, that's pretty embarrassing, even impotent dudes can last longer than that I reckon.

Why would AI be unfriendly? From what I'm getting people fear "laughably incompetent AI" that passes off as dangerous due to misreading stuff we do.

Might as well add "alien weapon that misfired at our direction by accident" to the list.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
All diseases are potentially deadly, and all sex risks transmission of disease. If you need to feel completely safe, then you will never have sex. Uh no. Both partners will go through all the tests before doing the deed. The problem is that doesn't work for the promiscuous type.

Originally posted by Bentley
Why would AI be unfriendly? From what I'm getting people fear "laughably incompetent AI" that passes off as dangerous due to misreading stuff we do.
Perhaps it would judge the free existence of humanity to be against its own self-interest?

Originally posted by Kurk
Uh no. Both partners will go through all the tests before doing the deed. The problem is that doesn't work for the promiscuous type.

Many people who are promiscuous test before having sex with new partners, so . . .

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Many people who are promiscuous test before having sex with new partners, so . . . If there are, I certainly haven't heard of it. Good for them though.

I'm not really a moral fan of sexual promiscuity, I'm a bit of a traditionalist in that way. I don't think that level of physical intimacy with someone you aren't emotionally intimate with is a good idea, I think it degrades the level of respect people have for each other, I don't think it's a good practice to make yourself little more than someone else's sexual object, and I think we're seeing the consequences of this casual attitude towards sex through the decline of marriage, the ever increasing single motherhood rate, and the uncertainty around what our sexual standards should be.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Many people who are promiscuous test before having sex with new partners, so . . . Every 6 months because even if you haven't cheated...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are your stances based on the issue that you two cannot form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or are your positions based on a mature, healthy, set of experiences that have led you to conclude that this is an effective way for relationships to optimally operate? You have become me... DDDM

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are your stances based on the issue that you two cannot form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or are your positions based on a mature, healthy, set of experiences that have led you to conclude that this is an effective way for relationships to optimally operate?
https://media.giphy.com/media/42vdIXEtTioF3yoxN8/giphy.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are your stances based on the issue that you two cannot form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or are your positions based on a mature, healthy, set of experiences that have led you to conclude that this is an effective way for relationships to optimally operate?

https://media.giphy.com/media/12zfAjyQ3RZNSw/giphy.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are your stances based on the issue that you two cannot form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or are your positions based on a mature, healthy, set of experiences that have led you to conclude that this is an effective way for relationships to optimally operate?
I mean I'm only gonna speak for myself... and not attempt to speak for or parrot the guy talking about mindwiping chicks for sex and having concubines while married and shit and shit...

But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.

I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).

And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'm only gonna speak for myself... and not attempt to speak for or parrot the guy talking about mindwiping chicks for sex and having concubines while married and shit and shit...

But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.

I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).

And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with? DMB seriously why do you make posts like this, honestly. It's just asking for a damn good trolling.

TBF, that's practically nothing compared to when Kurk outright told you that you give him daddy issues.

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, that's practically nothing compared to when Kurk outright told you that you give him daddy issues. Still getting over that tbh. Anyway... what the **** is going on today with the younger posters?

Darth Skywalker is going to come in in a minute tell us he has read a book on women and understands perfectly how their minds work. He is then going to say he has read the Kama Sutra and knows how to make a girl squirt every time just by touching a chakra.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'm only gonna speak for myself... and not attempt to speak for or parrot the guy talking about mindwiping chicks for sex and having concubines while married and shit and shit...

But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.

I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).

And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer me seriously instead pretending it's bait.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I appreciate you taking the time to answer me seriously instead pretending it's bait. Hang on, it wan't bait?

Wasn't bait if the person replying was capable of navigating through it intelligently.

Originally posted by Kurk
If there are, I certainly haven't heard of it. Good for them though.

If you actually had sex with people, you might meet some.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't bait if the person replying was capable of navigating through it intelligently. Yeah and whilst DMB's reply is a trolls wet dream, I guess he did do an O.K. job of that and was honest. But **** it, at his age you should be making shit loads of mistakes because of your dick. Seriously, his hero Trump still does.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Hang on, it wan't bait?

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't bait if the person replying was capable of navigating through it intelligently.



It would be bait if they really are, as accused, incels.

Awww. Pooty sounds Triggered.

I blame all the #'s.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Awww. Pooty sounds Triggered.

I blame all the #'s. Fly give up, you are not good at trolling.

Originally posted by dadudemon


It would be bait if they really are, as accused, incels. Y-you m-m-mean they aren't, scans or it didn't happen!

I don't have to be good at it. And I don't TROLL!

I just point out your Leftist Hypocrisy and Enjoy you getting Triggered over it.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I don't have to be good at it. And I don't TROLL!

I just point out your Leftist Hypocrisy and Enjoy you getting Triggered over it. Fly, what are you trying to satirise?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.

Sounds like something a virgin would say.




Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).

It is hypothesized that this position is the reason Christians have higher rates of divorce than other groups. It also explains why Christians marry younger than other groups as well: to have socially-sanctioned sex. The desire to have sex leads them to marry at a young age, and because they did not explore sex with other people beforehand, they do not realize until some time later that they are not sexually compatible. This leads them to divorce, so they can pursue sex with other people. It is a position that, while laudable, works much better in theory than it does in practice.




Originally posted by Emperordmb
And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with?

Not when your existing framework allows you the illusion of choice, i.e. it is not that you have deficits that makes you sexually unappealing to others, it is your choice to not have sex.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah and whilst DMB's reply is a trolls wet dream, I guess he did do an O.K. job of that and was honest. But **** it, at his age you should be making shit loads of mistakes because of your dick. Seriously, his hero Trump still does.
Trump is not my hero. I agree with some of his policies (such as the tax cuts) and don't shy away from criticizing others (tariffs, drug war, etc.), I appreciate how his existence causes a part of the media and culture I disagree with to react so impulsively and emotionally they undercut their own credibility, and at other times he's a bloviating jackass.

I definitely strongly morally disagree with his sexual attitudes or sexual conduct, but I don't think a president cheating on their wife is a serious political concern.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I definitely strongly morally disagree with his sexual attitudes or sexual conduct, but I don't think a president cheating on their wife is a serious political concern.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sounds like something a virgin would say.



I jest, I jest!

In DMB's defense, despite being a virgin(correct me if I'm wrong here), his posts have not come off dripping with scorn and venom towards women like Surt's and Kurk's do, at least not recently.

Originally posted by Robtard
In DMB's defense, despite being a virgin(correct me if I'm wrong here), his posts have not come off dripping with scorn and venom towards women like Surt's and Kurk's do, at least not recently. No, I take that on board and to be fair when he is not being e-Hitler, he sometimes has a point or two.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sounds like something a virgin would say.

Not when your existing framework allows you the illusion of choice, i.e. it is not that you have deficits that makes you sexually unappealing to others, it is your choice to not have sex.
I'm going to address this honestly instead of lying in an attempt to keep you from jumping to certain conclusions.

I am a virgin, but no I did not adopt my stance to maintain some illusion of choice after a repeated series of sexual rejections.

My time going through puberty aside, I have not really been interested in pursuing sexual relationships with women I did not feel anything for emotionally, and in my adult life I have only pursued two women due to my sexual attraction and emotional interest in them, I got rejected by the first, moved on within a week and am still friends with her, and I have not yet asked out the second.

I don't have a particularly detailed or lengthy history of rejection, and my approach to sex is one that I've had since before being rejected and is not something I've simply contrived to shield my self-image from shame.

That is the honest truth, please if you can restrain yourself from doing your usual mindreading shtick to try and presume an understanding of my motives or character that you simply do not have.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is hypothesized that this position is the reason Christians have higher rates of divorce than other groups. It also explains why Christians marry younger than other groups as well: to have socially-sanctioned sex. The desire to have sex leads them to marry at a young age, and because they did not explore sex with other people beforehand, they do not realize until some time later that they are not sexually compatible. This leads them to divorce, so they can pursue sex with other people. It is a position that, while laudable, works much better in theory than it does in practice.
Well I myself never made the marriage only argument, I made the argument that sex should be between two people (don't really give a **** if they're same sex or opposite sex) in a genuine emotionally intimate relationship. I'm only arguing against casual sex, not sex between two non-married people in a serious relationship, so this isn't really a counterpoint to my actual stance.

Also I have said before that I disapprove of the bitter "It's not me it's those bitches man, **** them and what a terrible world this is that they exist" attitude, in fact I find that attitude even more antithetical than the casual sex one to my values as an individualist who doesn't believe collective guilt should be ascribed to demographics and someone who places a lot of value and respect upon genuine romantic relationships.

I've also directly said I find the MGTOW shit really cringey.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
My time going through puberty aside, I have not really been interested in pursuing sexual relationships with women I did not feel anything for emotionally, and in my adult life I have only pursued two women due to my sexual attraction and emotional interest in them, I got rejected by the first, moved on within a week and am still friends with her, and I have not yet asked out the second.

I don't have a particularly detailed or lengthy history of rejection, and my approach to sex is one that I've had since before being rejected and is not something I've simply contrived to shield my self-image from shame.

So you are zero for two.

You know everyone is just giving you a hard time, right? No one thinks you are an incel like Kurk.

I mean I'm not really outraged or anything, just explaining in case anyone is interested.

There's usually a change in the tone of my posts when I'm genuinely aggravated that requires a lot more use of the KMC censor algorithm thing.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'm not really outraged or anything, just explaining in case anyone is interested.

There's usually a change in the tone of my posts when I'm genuinely aggravated that requires a lot more use of the KMC censor algorithm thing. To be fair Dmb just lighten up a bit and reduce the e-hitler shit. You take stuff far too seriously.

Well DDM says it wasn't meant to be bait so I will chime in along with DMD

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are your stances based on the issue that you two cannot form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex or are your positions based on a mature, healthy, set of experiences that have led you to conclude that this is an effective way for relationships to optimally operate?

I cannot speak for the first part of your question as I have never attempted to form a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, unlike DMD.

I have been approached by females throughout middle and high-school. I will rattle out some of the instances I've had (not all of them were sexual in nature, some were just friendly gestures by females)

1. 7th grade: Two different females (best friends) stalking me over the period of 6 months. Finding my address and passing by in front of it. Stalking my social media at the time and constantly posting pictures of me and random shit. One time they approached my parents and said shit I'm glad I wasn't around to hear. They later would tell me "Oh, Kurk, your parents liked me! Now we can marry and have kids!". Multiple hugs. This shit went on for the entirety of that year until they finally figured out I'm an asshat and wasn't interested in putting my noodle in their egg-basket. Now I can't blame these girls too much as they were going through puberty and likely experiencing hormonal stuff.

9th grade: One chick approached me after school and asked me to the homecoming dance. I said no. They later slandered me, and that's a whole other incident.

10th grade: Freshman girl took a keen interest in me for that year. Multiple instances suggesting she was at the very least probing me. E.g: sending her friends to probe me, ask indirect questions about her trying to get my opinions, etc. She would randomly try to hug me in the hallways, sit on my lap, repeatedly and randomly say "I love you!" (I'm assuming this is a friendly girl thing they do in general, not necessarily romantic). This person asked me to prom, again I rejected. After that year she grew up and developed more of a friendly attitude with me.

12th grade: Somebody I didn't know too well made an elaborate promposal. I told them to f*ck off. They teared up. One of my teachers called me a d1ck. The day of prom some desperate chick whose recently went through a breakup casually asked me to go with them. I once again told them no. Unfortunately this person's father, who I had a professional relationship ship, found out and gave me the silent treatment for quite some time since his daughter ended up going to senior prom alone lol.

Bonus: Again in senior year I had some gay dude who I was just getting friendly with probe me for a short period of time. Again, it entailed sitting on my crotch and trying to lay down on me. Fortunately he quickly found out I wasn't interested in KingJoker's stuff.


So yeah, I'm a piece of shit with women; not an involuntary virgin. I would like to think that I possess the capacity to form at least a superficial relationship with a member of the opposite sex if I wanted to. So to answer your question, no, my opinions are not based on my non-existent inability to form a relationship with a woman. Now that we have that cleared up, I can address the second part of your question.

If you had asked me 3 years ago or so, I probably would have given you an answer akin to DMD's. However, in more recent years I've begun to suppress those beliefs in favor of objectification of women. Now I have to say that I have great respect for women who possess masculine personalities (e.g rationality, stoicism); that is why I enjoy Raven so much. Hell, one of my comp sci profs is a female and I bend my knee to her.

I accept that everyone has a different set of values; what works for some doesn't work for others and vice versa. I don't mind promiscuity anymore (aside from the public health aspect of it). Honestly some people can't manage long-term commitments like marriage (there is scientific evidence that indicates evolution-wise some men are prone to promiscuity, others to long-term commitments to ensure successful procreation). Look at the divorce rates. There's no reason to subject children to dysfunctional parents because of what's socially acceptable or not.

So in brief, no, I personally haven't had any experiences to base my opinion on. I support polygamy and monogomy and alike. I'd rather have the state, a corporation, or other third-party raise a productive member of society than leave them in the care of a dysfunctional match-up. I don't care if it's two gay guys, a single male/female, etc. As long as the kid grows up to be intelligent and contributes to society I couldn't care less who did the raising as long as it was done effectively. I don't think DMD's morals should be shoved down the throats of people who don't want it. It kinda goes against his libertarian beliefs, doesn't it?


Now as for the biological implications of kids growing up with multiple partners, no father figures, etc, that's a whole other issue in itself.

Originally posted by Kurk
Well DDM says it wasn't meant to be bait so I will chime in along with DMD



I cannot speak for the first part of your question as I have never attempted to form a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, unlike DMD.

I have been approached by females throughout middle and high-school. I will rattle out some of the instances I've had (not all of them were sexual in nature, some were just friendly gestures by females)

1. 7th grade: Two different females (best friends) stalking me over the period of 6 months. Finding my address and passing by in front of it. Stalking my social media at the time and constantly posting pictures of me and random shit. One time they approached my parents and said shit I'm glad I wasn't around to hear. They later would tell me "Oh, Kurk, your parents liked me! Now we can marry and have kids!". Multiple hugs. This shit went on for the entirety of that year until they finally figured out I'm an asshat and wasn't interested in putting my noodle in their egg-basket. Now I can't blame these girls too much as they were going through puberty and likely experiencing hormonal stuff.

9th grade: One chick approached me after school and asked me to the homecoming dance. I said no. They later slandered me, and that's a whole other incident.

10th grade: Freshman girl took a keen interest in me for that year. Multiple instances suggesting she was at the very least probing me. E.g: sending her friends to probe me, ask indirect questions about her trying to get my opinions, etc. She would randomly try to hug me in the hallways, sit on my lap, repeatedly and randomly say "I love you!" (I'm assuming this is a friendly girl thing they do in general, not necessarily romantic). This person asked me to prom, again I rejected. After that year she grew up and developed more of a friendly attitude with me.

12th grade: Somebody I didn't know too well made an elaborate promposal. I told them to f*ck off. They teared up. One of my teachers called me a d1ck. The day of prom some desperate chick whose recently went through a breakup casually asked me to go with them. I once again told them no. Unfortunately this person's father, who I had a professional relationship ship, found out and gave me the silent treatment for quite some time since his daughter ended up going to senior prom alone lol.

Bonus: Again in senior year I had some gay dude who I was just getting friendly with probe me for a short period of time. Again, it entailed sitting on my crotch and trying to lay down on me. Fortunately he quickly found out I wasn't interested in KingJoker's stuff.


So yeah, I'm a piece of shit with women; not an involuntary virgin. I would like to think that I possess the capacity to form at least a superficial relationship with a member of the opposite sex if I wanted to. So to answer your question, no, my opinions are not based on my non-existent inability to form a relationship with a woman. Now that we have that cleared up, I can address the second part of your question.

If you had asked me 3 years ago or so, I probably would have given you an answer akin to DMD's. However, in more recent years I've begun to suppress those beliefs in favor of objectification of women. Now I have to say that I have great respect for women who possess masculine personalities (e.g rationality, stoicism); that is why I enjoy Raven so much. Hell, one of my comp sci profs is a female and I bend my knee to her.

I accept that everyone has a different set of values; what works for some doesn't work for others and vice versa. I don't mind promiscuity anymore (aside from the public health aspect of it). Honestly some people can't manage long-term commitments like marriage (there is scientific evidence that indicates evolution-wise some men are prone to promiscuity, others to long-term commitments to ensure successful procreation). Look at the divorce rates. There's no reason to subject children to dysfunctional parents because of what's socially acceptable or not.

So in brief, no, I personally haven't had any experiences to base my opinion on. I support polygamy and monogomy and alike. I'd rather have the state, a corporation, or other third-party raise a productive member of society than leave them in the care of a dysfunctional match-up. I don't care if it's two gay guys, a single male/female, etc. As long as the kid grows up to be intelligent and contributes to society I couldn't care less who did the raising as long as it was done effectively. I don't think DMD's morals should be shoved down the throats of people who don't want it. It kinda goes against his libertarian beliefs, doesn't it?


Now as for the biological implications of kids growing up with multiple partners, no father figures, etc, that's a whole other issue in itself.

https://img.fireden.net/a/image/1482/27/1482274708839.png

edit: wow I didn't even get to the support of the objectification of women holy shit

Yeaaaa... no...

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm going to address this honestly instead of lying in an attempt to keep you from jumping to certain conclusions.

I am a virgin, but no I did not adopt my stance to maintain some illusion of choice after a repeated series of sexual rejections.

My time going through puberty aside, I have not really been interested in pursuing sexual relationships with women I did not feel anything for emotionally, and in my adult life I have only pursued two women due to my sexual attraction and emotional interest in them, I got rejected by the first, moved on within a week and am still friends with her, and I have not yet asked out the second.

I don't have a particularly detailed or lengthy history of rejection, and my approach to sex is one that I've had since before being rejected and is not something I've simply contrived to shield my self-image from shame.

That is the honest truth, please if you can restrain yourself from doing your usual mindreading shtick to try and presume an understanding of my motives or character that you simply do not have.

This is admirable. This makes me like you more. As Robtard said, it's nice that you do not have hate for women while still holding the positions you do. As long as you maintain these morals (and don't sidetrack into the ragey angry "nice guy" persona), I think you're going to have an amazing relationship with a gal one day.



Also, forgive Adam_PoE for his rather abrasive position: he's a very attractive man in real life who has never had a problem finding a date. Your position, to him, probably seems like you're compensating or in denial.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'm not really outraged or anything, just explaining in case anyone is interested.

I was and I appreciated it.

Originally posted by Kurk
Well DDM says it wasn't meant to be bait so I will chime in along with DMD



I cannot speak for the first part of your question as I have never attempted to form a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, unlike DMD.

I have been approached by females throughout middle and high-school. I will rattle out some of the instances I've had (not all of them were sexual in nature, some were just friendly gestures by females)

1. 7th grade: Two different females (best friends) stalking me over the period of 6 months. Finding my address and passing by in front of it. Stalking my social media at the time and constantly posting pictures of me and random shit. One time they approached my parents and said shit I'm glad I wasn't around to hear. They later would tell me "Oh, Kurk, your parents liked me! Now we can marry and have kids!". Multiple hugs. This shit went on for the entirety of that year until they finally figured out I'm an asshat and wasn't interested in putting my noodle in their egg-basket. Now I can't blame these girls too much as they were going through puberty and likely experiencing hormonal stuff.

9th grade: One chick approached me after school and asked me to the homecoming dance. I said no. They later slandered me, and that's a whole other incident.

10th grade: Freshman girl took a keen interest in me for that year. Multiple instances suggesting she was at the very least probing me. E.g: sending her friends to probe me, ask indirect questions about her trying to get my opinions, etc. She would randomly try to hug me in the hallways, sit on my lap, repeatedly and randomly say "I love you!" (I'm assuming this is a friendly girl thing they do in general, not necessarily romantic). This person asked me to prom, again I rejected. After that year she grew up and developed more of a friendly attitude with me.

12th grade: Somebody I didn't know too well made an elaborate promposal. I told them to f*ck off. They teared up. One of my teachers called me a d1ck. The day of prom some desperate chick whose recently went through a breakup casually asked me to go with them. I once again told them no. Unfortunately this person's father, who I had a professional relationship ship, found out and gave me the silent treatment for quite some time since his daughter ended up going to senior prom alone lol.

Bonus: Again in senior year I had some gay dude who I was just getting friendly with probe me for a short period of time. Again, it entailed sitting on my crotch and trying to lay down on me. Fortunately he quickly found out I wasn't interested in KingJoker's stuff.


So yeah, I'm a piece of shit with women; not an involuntary virgin. I would like to think that I possess the capacity to form at least a superficial relationship with a member of the opposite sex if I wanted to. So to answer your question, no, my opinions are not based on my non-existent inability to form a relationship with a woman. Now that we have that cleared up, I can address the second part of your question.

If you had asked me 3 years ago or so, I probably would have given you an answer akin to DMD's. However, in more recent years I've begun to suppress those beliefs in favor of objectification of women. Now I have to say that I have great respect for women who possess masculine personalities (e.g rationality, stoicism); that is why I enjoy Raven so much. Hell, one of my comp sci profs is a female and I bend my knee to her.

I accept that everyone has a different set of values; what works for some doesn't work for others and vice versa. I don't mind promiscuity anymore (aside from the public health aspect of it). Honestly some people can't manage long-term commitments like marriage (there is scientific evidence that indicates evolution-wise some men are prone to promiscuity, others to long-term commitments to ensure successful procreation). Look at the divorce rates. There's no reason to subject children to dysfunctional parents because of what's socially acceptable or not.

So in brief, no, I personally haven't had any experiences to base my opinion on. I support polygamy and monogomy and alike. I'd rather have the state, a corporation, or other third-party raise a productive member of society than leave them in the care of a dysfunctional match-up. I don't care if it's two gay guys, a single male/female, etc. As long as the kid grows up to be intelligent and contributes to society I couldn't care less who did the raising as long as it was done effectively. I don't think DMD's morals should be shoved down the throats of people who don't want it. It kinda goes against his libertarian beliefs, doesn't it?


Now as for the biological implications of kids growing up with multiple partners, no father figures, etc, that's a whole other issue in itself.

People will shit on you for you posting your experiences. But we must keep in mind that you were a teenage boy awkwardly trying to find your way in the world. You were a dick and an asshat in some situations. Also, the girls were the same as you: teenagers awkwardly figuring out how to operate in the world.

Thanks for sharing your stories. I have no advice for you because you'll make a mockery of it or just call it internet armchair psychology. You need lots of advice and direction, though.

Also, I strongly support objectifying men and women. Such as, "Wow, that girl's ass is amazing." Or "dude has sexy abs." Who cares? We are sexual creatures. Objectify away. Just do not take it to the next step of catcalling or assault.

Originally posted by dadudemon
People will shit on you for you posting your experiences. But we must keep in mind that you were a teenage boy awkwardly trying to find your way in the world. You were a dick and an asshat in some situations. Also, the girls were the same as you: teenagers awkwardly figuring out how to operate in the world.

Thanks for sharing your stories. I have no advice for you because you'll make a mockery of it or just call it internet armchair psychology. You need lots of advice and direction, though.

Be his "daddy"

Originally posted by Kurk
If you had asked me 3 years ago or so, I probably would have given you an answer akin to DMD's. However, in more recent years I've begun to suppress those beliefs in favor of objectification of women. Now I have to say that I have great respect for women who possess masculine personalities (e.g rationality, stoicism); that is why I enjoy Raven so much. Hell, one of my comp sci profs is a female and I bend my knee to her.

So what you're saying is you're into futanari babes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, forgive Adam_PoE for his rather abrasive position: he's a very attractive man in real life who has never had a problem finding a date. Your position, to him, probably seems like you're compensating or in denial.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/de548331be30d65dacbf9cb84f16c34a/tumblr_inline_oomwddqgnN1ut0xhb_500.gif

Glad to see productive and relevant conversation as always

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I strongly support objectifying men and women.


I'd agree with this, sometimes it's fun to be the piece of meat, other times it's fun to be the wooden spikey mallet thing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So what you're saying is you're into futanari babes.
Well I'm glad I didn't google that on my school's network.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I strongly support objectifying men and women. Such as, "Wow, that girl's ass is amazing." Or "dude has sexy abs." Who cares? We are sexual creatures. Objectify away. Just do not take it to the next step of catcalling or assault.
See we can agree on some things. I mean I've been called gay before simply because I pointed out how nice I think Mike O'hearn's chest looks. Whether it's male or female, I can't help but enjoy the aesthetics of nice physique. Here's the truth: if Raven was a fat slob, I wouldn't have any attraction towards her. You can have a kick-ass personality, but there's a biological component of the mind that can't be overridden (unless you're a fat slob yourself too lol). I mean I'm attracted to hot girls who are stupid, but I'd never want to have an association with them outside of casual sex.

I agree that catcalling isn't cool though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, I strongly support objectifying men and women. Such as, "Wow, that girl's ass is amazing." Or "dude has sexy abs." Who cares? We are sexual creatures. Objectify away. Just do not take it to the next step of catcalling or assault. If you try convincing me with rationale and not emotions/morals and/or uneducated opinions. I'll probably take what you say into serious consideration.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The next step, which is over the line, is catcalling. Perhaps long, creepy, and awkward staring is also the next step.

I catcall my sweetheart. Wink. Wiggle my eyebrows at her...but we are engaged and plan to stay together our entire lives. When she bends over to pick up something, I grab her hips and smack my balls against her butt like we are grinding at a club. The difference is I am in a committed relationship. You don't have to be in a relaitonship to do these kinds of things. There could be a mutual understanding and desire for each other. To be honest, it depends on cultural and societal norms, if I'm hammered on tequila and lager in a bar in Phuket and a girl doesn't "goose" my ass, I might as well be hammered in a bar in Newcastle in the UK, actually, it might well happen there tbh.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
To be honest, it depends on cultural and societal norms, if I'm hammered on tequila and lager in a bar in Phuket and a girl doesn't "goose" my ass, I might as well be hammered in a bar in Newcastle in the UK, actually, it might well happen there tbh.

If it's Phuket, it's probably not really a girl-girl

Originally posted by Robtard
If it's Phuket, it's probably not really a girl-girl Rob believe me the lady boys are easy to identify everywhere, strangely the most I've ever seen in one place are Sri Lankan ones in the shit hole that is Georgetown in Malaysia. Georgetown shithole of shitholes in SE Asia. They harass you at late night stores as you come out and are quite annoying with there objectification.

Ladyboys are easy to spot in Thailand, they're the ones not charging you for sex.