Would you rather take in 50,000 male Syrian refugees, or 200,000 female Syrian refugees?
Would you rather take in 50,000 male Syrian refugees, or 200,000 female Syrian refugees?
>is that even a question the 200k females of course
>neither
The only answers you will get desu
50 000 but we chemical castrate them
>female Syrian refugees
I'd rather not taking refugees.
200,000 female Syrian refugees
Males.
Here's why:
>1. it's far easier to accomodate for 50k than 200k
>2. it's the """""men""""" that are useless in sweden. we need more real men, even if they come from a shithole
200k females, if they can be from the christian population even better
All refugee is male, therefore I choose neither.
200,000 female Syrian refugees. Then we would have a massive surplus of young women, and I could get a gf.
This.
50k is a smaller hit on the genepool
But 200k women is more managable and means tons of pussy even for ugly guys.
Hard question tbqh.
200 000
each men can buy up to 3 bitches
wtf i love polygamy now
ah yes, the real men who sit on welfare and beat their women
Female refugees.
The young, fit males should stay in their country and fight against jihadists.
>>is that even a question the 200k females of course
this
>muslims
>real men
you need to go back Ahmed.
Females, as long as they dont come with bonus package of 10 shitskin kids
200,000 female Syrian refugees you fucking stupid retard. sage.
>50,000 less
Much housing required, 90% will die alone without ever having put dick in vagoo
>200,000 women
Much larger burden on housing market
Most will find husbands and provide offspring further ruining national gene pool
More islamification
Females
You can't survive in romania on welfare so that they'll all have to work somehow, which is good for the economy.
t. Ahmed or Marzcech
the men are problematic and the cause of every hopeless shit going on now
femishit was right
this
It would devalue women on the sexual marketplace