I have been redpilled on every issue of debate

I have been redpilled on every issue of debate.
Ask anything you wish, my child

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/RVBUjGWWo0U
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

why are you such a faggot

are traps gay?

Only question that matters

Why haven't you killed yourself?

Why do you think anyone cares about your ability?

Some factors of biological predisposition, a lack of a strong male role model that appealed to my value sets, the fact that some men are attractive, and that love is not an entirely rational or logical concept.
Thank you for your question and I invite you to share your thoughts on the subject and my interpretation.

>redpilled
Buzzwords are the only thing I hear now-a-days.

Some people throw around the number that it's only 12% or 7% gay, I forget the specifics. But if every cell in that person's body is biologically male, then it's not true that it's only 12% gay. It's 100% gay.
Of course, there's the issue of a separation between sex and gender and whether romantic and sexual attraction places more emphasis on biology or the social relationship and experience, but that seems slightly off topic for your question.
Traps are gay.
Again, thank you for your question, please feel encouraged to share.

OP whether or not you'll admit it you're only doing this for your ego to justify some type of self doubt hidden in your subconscious.

You're a faggot.

You must imagine Sisyphus happy.
I choose to derive meaning in the struggle against impossible odds and insurmountable obstacles.
Killing myself is an easy way out, and I think i can have more fun if I stick around.
Thank you for your question, please share.

I severely doubt you will get much fun fr browsing Sup Forums,but oh well.

Because there is an inherent desire within humans to seek truth and justice. In western civilization we have elevated those pursuits as our moral values, and society has arguably worked better than any other iteration before it.
Thank you for your question, please share your thoughts and ideas.

can right-wingers argue anything without resorting to memes?

Thank you for your opinion.
I respectfully disagree that it is because I have subconscious doubt about my beliefs - in fact I want to scrutinise them more so that I can correct my failings. That being said, I will concede that it was an egotistical way of framing the idea.

cubub egah Liukhu bub bootoo kalazone tomali ron tu jee?

valid response, OP is an eloquent faggot.

I'd like to see OP tackle this one

Absolutely. I find most arguments are backed up by reputable organisations with sound methodologies and logically consistent conclusions. The fact that those same people enjoy a picture of a cartoon frog committing 9/11 wearing a yamaka doesn't mean they're not intellectuals.

...

Lee Kala maccindu swalonyo pritalicatilla.
(I'm assuming this is gibberish and am responding in kind, sorry if this is a legitimate question in a language I do not recognise.)

It's English OP.

Redpilled my ass. Typical surface fags

are 98% of scientists wrong about man-made climate change?

Yes. The climate is too complicated for humans to understand or model.

Are we raising the global average tempurature?

Probably not. But those 98% of scientists do not agree on the extent to which man made climate change has influenced the climate. Some of them say so small an amount that it is negligible, but admit the existence of man made climate change, human influence on the climate in the form of carbon emissions and the like. Others say that man made climate change is the leading cause of changes in climate. I find either extreme very difficult to believe based on the evidence they provide.
I would advise recycling, energy and water conservation (which makes economic sense as well), and looking towards renewable energies, because we will run out of fossil fuels at some point, we can't rely only on these finite resources.

Again, probably yes. But by how much? 0.0000000001°C per century? 1°C per year? The data as it is currently available doesn't answer this definitively yet. I do not think the influence we as a species have on the environment is negligible in the state of behaviour we have right now, generally.

No you're not.
The way to tell if someone is truly red pilled is the abortion question.

Pro or against and more importantly, why?

>ITT: retard discovers the powers of the dictionary

u wasted all your time on this thread for no reason other than to stroke ur own ego
so
congrats
i guess

Pro choice.
Although I am increasingly finding pro life arguments more morally robust than I had previously thought, I cannot agree that life begins at conception. In my understand, life begins when you start to become self aware, cognisant. Until we have the technological capability to identify exactly when that point in development is, there will always be debate about when abortion should be allowed.
I doubt a single pro life supporter believes that non-human, dead things should prevent women from having control over their bodies. The disagreement arises when someone asserts that a foetus or a zygote or whatever else you want to call it is "not human" yet. Pro life believe that life begins at conception. Pro choice believe that life begins at a later stage in development. When exactly that moment is, still requires research.

Thank you for your opinion.
I already stated that part of the motivation of this thread was to stroke my ego by proclaiming I have all the answers. That's the meme level.
I also want to encourage debate and the sharing of ideas, that's why I thank people for their contribution and encourage them to continue talking and asking questions.

>life begins when you start to become self aware
so. age 28. or never.

> (You)
Wow, Interesting to see someone who claims to be red pilled be pro choice for once. We're a very rare breed.

Check this vid out to give you a little wider perspective on the issue. This video made me pro choice youtu.be/RVBUjGWWo0U

In a sense, yes.
Jordan Peterson, building on the works of Carl Jung, mentioned once that at the time a person transitions from adolescence to adulthood, there is a kind of rebirth in that you find the plurality of being again. When you are a child, you have pluripotentiality, you can be anything. When you are an adolescent going through education and training, you are increasingly narrowed into a specialisation. When you are an adult, you take on multiple roles as parent, employer, employee, partner, spouse, divorcee, any multitude of identities all at once.
Around 28 or whatever, you are reborn as a child is born, with pluripotentiality.

I only watched the first half because the accent and slightly broken English is irritating to me and it's almost one in the morning.
My thoughts on the video are that he is being overly judgemental when he calls the women who choose abortion to be defective and immoral.
Is it not moral to choose to not create a life that will be negative more than it will be positive? Is it not moral that they choose not to perpetuate their own failings? I think more compassion is needed in this point of view, to show that you value the fact that women aspire to and achieve wonderful levels of success in motherhood as well as depraved levels of failure in motherhood.

AK: 7.62mm or 5.45mm?

Milosevic was the good guy. Prove me wrong.

Ah, you've found my one weakness, technical detail.
I'm afraid my redpilling is restricted to the abstract, so unless you can accurately portray the propositions of each side in a moral analogy, I have no opinion on this topic, except to say that 5.56 is what I've encountered most in popular culture, so there's likely a reason for such hegemony.

why there is chemicals in the water turning the freaking frogs gay???

I didn't know the name Milosevic before this comment, so my apologies for not being able to address this issue as specifically as you'd probably like. However, a Google search tells me he's a previous president of Serbia and was a socialist.
Communism and socialism don't work because they are based on Marxism, and Marxism contends that there is no difference between profit and plunder.
A Marxist notes an inequality in the world and proclaims that the person with more only has more because they stole it from the person with less (plunder), and not because they contributed something of value to the system and was rewarded for that contribution (profit).
By ignoring this difference between profit and plunder, you give rise to things like third wave feminism, black lives matter, communism (proles Vs bourgeoisie). It doesn't work.
(Socialism in this post has been considered "the road to communism". A moderate, centrist form of socialism where there is some assistance for those that are disadvantaged is more acceptable, but is not the prevailing theory of socialism as a whole.)

Because the Jews want the frogs to stop reproducing so the French starve to death.
Memes aside, corporations are willing to poison the environment to generate profit. In aspiring towards perfection, in the form of more money more money, they neglect wholeness in that a balance between growth, family life, social life, a healthy environment, and all the related things get forgotten, displaced by an excess of capitalistic desire for cold hard cash.

Deep Impact or Armageddon?

I've seen neither, so you'd have to wait a few hours for an answer unless you're able to frame the difference in a moral framework. My apologies.

No one has brought up the matter of paedophilia, but I was in a "ask a rapist" thread and explained my views there thusly:
I draw a very distinct line between paedophiles and child molesters. I can't excuse the violation of the rights of a child under any circumstances, but at the same time a person with sexual urges towards a child has not necessarily violated someone's rights. Paedophiles need assistance and compassion, child molesters need to be reformed, isolated and/or punished, depending on your ideology on the purpose of prisons in society.