If we want a world without war, should we let women take over because of them being less agressive then men?

If we want a world without war, should we let women take over because of them being less agressive then men?

bump

If we want a world without war, should we let rich people take over because of them being less aggressive than poors?

Huey Lewis ve Haberleri sever misiniz?

source?

atleast my statement has as much backup as racecial traits, IQ and gender factors are well established

>less aggressive than men
Uh...

In some ways they are, but socially they're more aggressive. They're quicker to criticize, less likely to forgive, more likely to take issue and more likely to initiate domestic violence.

The only reason terrorists are predominantly men (some suicide bombers have worn burqas/niqabs) is because soldiers are traditionally men. There is no deeper reason, there's not even an indisputable link between testosterone and violence, in fact one or two studies suggest testosterone leads to friendliness in men.

Sure why not have a trillion cold wars going on with constant proxy wars.....all because some other world leader had a better looking dress or forgot to invite so and so

You cannot have a civilization without Men
You cannot have a civilization with Muslims.

>"there is no deeper reason"

yeah, but let me guess social constructions aren't part of the explanation when it comes to other groups violance?

nevetheless, its the same diffrence, if we have to do something about the regular problems like blacks, muslims ect. we should do something about men in general, seems to follow the same logic, unless you can explain as to why that isnt the case.

(with an argument that does not apply to all groups such as "traditionally" , "coloniolism"
its all essentialy a "historically" therfor today argument)

not saying i disagree, just playing the devils advocate here

The picture is the introduction, the question is, why not remove men from power positions? Seems as logical as any other belief held on here.

no arguments? Guess Sup Forums should be a feminist alt-right movment now

>yeah, but let me guess social constructions aren't part of the explanation when it comes to other groups violance?
Social constructions shouldn't be used to redeem guilt but at the same time ignorance of social constructs when it benefits you is intellectual dishonesty.

When I say social constructs shouldn't be used as excuses, at the same time it's not easy to recognise when you're effected by them. Niggers are effected by a deterministic social construct that outright denies self perfection, which is the prettiest way I can put their condition that promotes crime and violence. This is a social construct but they refuse to change because somehow they believe self perfection is strictly the domain of the white man. They're deterministic, they believe if they aren't "discovered" either as a musician or sports star their only other means of success is crime. It's a wretched condition that whenever anyone tries to point out so they can recognise it and overcome it, they're yelled at as racists.

What you're doing is the opposite, but my point still stands. Islam is violent and an inability to recognise it makes you complicit with the violence. Meanwhile, the modern white man (those millennial cucks you hate) love philosophy and messages about peace, they have overcome their warrior instincts and instead of acknowledging this you either criticize them for it or completely ignore it.

Meanwhile, women have been told they're perfect because feminism and thus have made absolutely no cultural progress at all since the 70s and have possibly gone backwards. This shit stops now.

>a whole bunch of conjecture

let me ask you again, im not asking you to excuse the white man by saying "hes kills because" , im asking you, knowing that men are the common factor of most terrorists, and evil leaders, just like islam is common in terrorists

what makes you disregard this information, while still clinging to the other?

muslimness vs maleness of evil

Kek imagine if the first caveman came to this conclusion and killed himself
Cave woman starves and dies in a fetal position
And that's how humans ended

That was far from my greatest post, I'm still a little tired from Christmas day lunch, but it's far from conjecture. In fact, it's kind of basic modernist philosophy.

>knowing that men are the common factor of most terrorists
Again, I disregard this because traditionally men have dominated the military and women have at best taken defensive roles. Again, you can't blame men for this because of course men still dominate the military and terrorist organisations actually believe they're paramilitaries.

My statement that millennial men are philosophical stands but only for young, white men who probably smoke weed. This is an observation, not conjecture, they're always attentive when I talk about eastern philosophy of libertarian philosophy. This is telling, white men aren't truly violent. They are the only worthy people of this culture that's being dismantled by literally degenerate women and foreigners who believe their pre-enlightenment ways are better because muh tolerance.

Islam is a supremacist ideology. Supremacist ideologies of any type are not welcome in the west. Seriously, you must go back. You can't handle this culture, in fact even I find it insufferable at times. Sometimes a man wants to be left alone, but Christian culture means I must smile and act friendly to a stranger who greets me.

>ban men from immigration

i'm ok with this

great argument on "should we remove men from power"

>Islam is an ideological choice
>Manhood is biology

Half witted female detected

I've argued for this, and with pic related. Seriously, there needs to be some way to stop men from acting like chimps. You want to look at prison statistics for race? Look at it for sex, it's even worse. But I've never heard anyone consider it a problem.

either youre retarded or this is shit bait
>why not remove men from power
because men are the ones who work, women suck when in charge and ruin countries, just look at mine, we elected a woman and the country went to shit, we went from being one of the best of latin america to one of the worst.

>i disregard this because

yeah, just like leftist disregard race, religion ect. because "their history, their colonolism! " ect.

so its basicallly the same argument rewritten again..

im asking, WHY you cant take the simple solution to ban them from power poisiton?
what i get is theory, and conjecture, no science, wheres is "much racial evidence, muh genetics?
all i got is "they are evil cuz of military" , but that isn't an anwser to the question as to why you disregard the information that most evil people are men

Who do you think bred all that aggression into the male gene pool, user?

im assuming you're one of the few non-racists here then?

Minimize crime
Maximize technological development
Maximize IQ

With only women you only achieve 1/3 of the goals.

Inferior result.

Its because politics isnt about logic, or science for the right either, its about power, just like they see with the left.

its all muh feelings and muh power

>that image

Call me back when 94% of men commit terrorist attacks.

Men are necessary for the survival of the species and the statement that terrorists are always men is entirely false.

why arent you replying to the posts making an argument you faggot op

I've sometimes wondered whether it would be a good thing if 90% of boy fetuses were aborted. The downside would be less scientifical inventions.

but one of those goals kills us, the other slows progress down..

so the consiquences are either "we might die, but hey atleast we progressed and made nukes.."

while on the other hand you might get "less conflict, but we still didnt solve some techonological gaps

shit argument/3

>Following a violent ideology is equivalent to having a Y chromosome.

The downside would be the end of the world you moron.
All the people here making an argument against this have clearly never worked with women

Are they? Or are they just weaker?

>3.5 billion is the same difference as 1.6 billion
This is why these people never get good jobs.

I'll take aggression over turning every corner of the world into a shitheap.

>women are less aggressive
they're physically weaker, sure, and thereby less physically capable...

however, PMS. Give the power to PMS, and, well, even a moron such as yourself can see why this is a bad idea.

t. im a girl

yeah, meanwhile in reality, men have nearly destroyed the world almost 3 times
while women have done it 0 times

Im starting to think you're a women, no man can be THIS stupid

great argument

There will never be a good argument on why either gender deserves more power than the other. The best the feminists can come up with devolves to "it's our turn to be oppressive, two wrongs make a right, right? right? right?"

All I ask from women is to be especially mindful about how media designed by them for them makes them horrible people. Feminists are horrible people who want to spread their own horribleness.

No, the leftists disregard biology. That's, to use a theological argument, belief that one is all mind and that existence comes from the mind rather than as a tripartite personality of mind, body and soul. I do not.

>im asking, WHY you cant take the simple solution to ban them from power poisiton?
Because you have yet to argue that men make bad leaders, especially when the sheer majority of historical examples of good leaders have been men.


>all i got is "they are evil cuz of military" , but that isn't an anwser to the question as to why you disregard the information that most evil people are men
I'm referencing your bias that men are exclusively terrorists, which I drew from the graphic you posted in the OP. Despite this being untrue, as some suicide bombers have worn niqabs/burkas, but again this isn't an argument since of course the majority membership of any organisation that believes it's a paramilitary will consist of men.

Where are your counter arguments? Where are your rebuttals? Iben/Ishmail, you are annoying me.

well if you think proven conflicts are better then imagined ones, im sure that will go great with the leftist philsophy about imagined peacefull races and religions

no the best argument is the same as with racists
"look at what your kind did"

like i said, men have destroyed the world almost 3 times already, how much more proof can you get?

go back to the leftists, and fear "imagined data" rather then whats infront of you

Can you reword that?

the left imagines peacefull muslims,blacks ect.
you imagine evil women to suite your view (without evidence that this would be the case, and WITH evidence that males have almost destroyed the world 3 times)

You (and most others on here) are perfectly fine with limiting the freedoms of groups based on group actions (blacks, muslims ect.) But yet somehow the biggest category of evil doers gets a freepass. The solution is obviously to limit males from power positions, because of the given evidence (same as with races)

its no suprise that politics on Sup Forums is the same as on tumblr, and reddit,

its all about power and feels
no logic or evidence
politics will never become a science

(you)

no surprise you know about tumblrs politics, why dont you go back there, we dont need you here

great argument
almost as good as "white male!!!"

and the true colors are shown.

did i disrupt your echochamber? sorry
i had an idea people only choose an ideology to fit their psycology, it seems like you're one of them

>self aware woman
Marry me...

...pls respond.

Which is the composition/division fallacy and not even relevant. Maybe male Islamic culture is violent, I'm not Islamic and I recognise that their religious leaders have stepped up as populists to rally the citizens to fight wars. This began in Iran and Afghanistan to protect against Soviet aggression and continued on with American oil imperialism.

That being said, your consistent denial of young white male pacifism is frankly absurd. I can almost assure you'll call us cucks for it in another thread.

>3 times over
And queen Elizabeth the first was the only British monarch to actively support pirates or "privateers."

Do you have a point? Or are you just abusing a fallacy?

whos? thats the question

the point is simple, the "ignoring white male pacifism " is essentialy an "not all" which isn't accepted on Sup Forums

and the destruction of the world is hardly comparable to some random example you pulled from your ass

the soultion here seems to be obvious, either draw the line from group categorisation and statistics to limiting male power, or make an argument that does not infringe your previous views of black/muslim generalizations

if not ,its just regual ol'hypocracy

which isnt new in politics

fixed

as stupid as other generalizations
yeah

this. I'm totally fine with banning men from coming into this country. Only women and girls. I will vote for any measure like that, and I'll even let them get huge welfare bux so they can live comfortable lives. No men though, and that means no male """"""children""""""" either.

Show tits you stupid whore

not suprised, as this seems to be based on power and feels

more women without the need to look at the facts and remove men from power

>destroyed the world
>7 billion people and growing

Yeah, let's give women the reigns and see what happens.

How's it going, Germany?

>we should do something about men in general,

But men are everything. Men are civilisation.

Women are physically incapable of using only one side of their brain to make a decision while men can make an emotionless decision.

While it's true that there would be no directly negative output from making every leader a woman, all the social problems today would just shift genders. It's a degeneracy problem not a gender problem.

>why not remove men from power positions?

Because it doesn't actually change anything.

And even if all leaders were anti-war women, one warlike woman would get into power and conquer her meek, useless foes.

if you let a woman take over you end up like us

>let rich people take over
thats not even making sense abo

>the point is simple, the "ignoring white male pacifism " is essentialy an "not all" which isn't accepted on Sup Forums
Because it's more often than not a middle ground fallacy.

This isn't a middle ground fallacy because, again, I guarantee you'll call my race, gender and age group cucks in the next thread or at best "nu Sup Forums."

This is not a "not all" argument, its a "we're either cucks or violent thugs but not both" argument.

>and the destruction of the world is hardly comparable to some random example you pulled from your ass
Again, fallacy.

Humans destroyed the world. I guarantee that if emancipation happened 400 years earlier Neville Chamberlain would have been a woman and so would Goebells.

If we want a world without poverty, we should just kill everyone who isn't weathly

>Number of people that commit terrorism in the name of being a man
>about 3
>Number of people that commit terrorism in the name of Islam
>Countless.
Also no, women can't stand each other. The "women are less aggressive" bullshit is a meme. They just don't like the idea of fighting face to face.

>terrorists are always men
But that's wrong.

>more often then not

>what fallacy?
both times didn't anwser the problem and moved the goal to "it was "humans" when we did it , but when a group i don't like does it its them specifially

>you dare to talk about fallacies when that lousy argument is presented

all you presnted is your trust, guarantees and conjectures, fallcies

with no argument given at my question
"where do we place the line when one generelizes the problem? religion,race, gender?
no argument given

OP you seem to be avoiding the fact that men built everything which you purport they also "almost destroyed 3 times". I'd say the benefits of men outweigh the risks.

Besides, you can't debunk generalizations as a whole by using half the entire human population as an example. You might as well just say that all terrorists are humans, so ban humans.

European queens declared war more often than european kings.

>"not all x"

>and it even says "aaalways"
are you an actual autist?

To the victor goes the spoils. That's how immigration should work.

Are woman capable of taking over? If Steve and Harry lets Suzy make the decisions do you think Suzy can convince Abdul and Jamal to let her make the decisions?

...

>the risk are death vs. supposed imagined proofless conjectures

hmmm

yeah, but the argument wouldnt be helpfull when you support racial, and religious versions of the argument, so you actually need to give a reason as to why it stops with "males"
other then the truth which is "because im male"

Just read other people's posts.

OP is gettin destroyed so there's no need for this thread anymore. Conclusion: OP is a cum gargler.

Du forstået :)

you do realize in the grand scheme of things wars are actually a force of goo and result in every party being better off within a time frame of 50 - 100 years?

why the fuck are we doing it any other way

The real conclusion here to is ban Muslim men...

You can't honestly believe you aren't obviously two women replying to each other can you? You are truly wondrous creatures.

The reason it stops with males is because very few terrorists perform attacks in the name of "being male", countless terrorists perform attacks in the name of Islam.

>*disclaimer, I"m drunk*

Women are more aggressive than men. On average. They're just indirect.

Also

I don't want girls in my world power playhouse.

You stink and give birth.

Go away.

Women: better fill up our countries with Muslim men then.

Cool stat, wonder why it isn't publicized more.

i am, still no argument on where the line of generalization goes,
and evidence is on my side

but feels, and personal identity always destroy politics eh?

fish speakers ???
i
sh
h

s
p
eakers
a
k
ers
r
s
?????

lesbians have highest rates of domestic violence
explain

great argument, lets excuse all blacks who don't kill in the name of black power

Yea, and what should be done about men is to make sure they have both a mother and father. Best way to tell whether a man will be violent is to look at whether he came from a single mother home.

Almost perfect correlation.

>imagined proofless conjectures
You mean like this?
>there would be no war if women were in charge

The reason it does or doesn't stop with "males" is because maleness arguably isn't the cause of the problem. You can't debunk generalizations by exaggerating correlating factors. I could say that all terrorists drink water and thus we should ban water, but just because I've made this ridiculous analogy doesn't mean that you should feel ashamed of making educated guesses about terrorists.

how about you anwser my questions before asking your own?

>"no u"

Because Islam is related to terrorism, while being a man is not.

...

It's drawn at overt features of whatever is effecting personality, whether it's culture or biology. If it's cultural, it must be actively prescribed and don't tell me that there aren't some atrocious hadiths. If it's biological, it must be a proven correlation and, again, testosterone hasn't been proven to cause violence.

I'm a guy, albeit a bit of a pretty boy.

Not the first time Sup Forums has assumed I'm a woman though, last time it was because I was being too nice. This time, I don't know.

Nah, you still broke the law. You clearly don't understand the differences between the two concepts or you are purposefully using flawed logic. Muslims are considered dangerous because the religion itself is very radical, blacks are considered dangerous because their culture and communities are very volatile.

terrorists are not always men.

Not an argument.

You know, OP has a point.

No I didn't.