ObjectivityIncarnate

Reminder that you’re someone who reacts to being told condoms are less convenient to use than long-term hormonal contraception by claiming the person who told you hates women, lol.

You know I’m right. There’s no other explanation for devolving into nonsensical personal insults while simultaneously completely evading my rebuttals.

So I accept your concession.

But you will hear them saying they don’t want to raise taxes, thinking it will affect them with their low income.

You presume to know what they’re thinking, you mean. Have you never considered the possibility that they’re simply adhering to the point of view that you shouldn’t have to pay over and over for the ‘privilege’ of continuing to own what you own?

Taxes can be targeted at the ultra-wealthy, but low-information people have been made to believe they will be taxed.

You assume they believe that because they’re ignorant. But what if they just know their history? The income tax started with the exact same promise, a tax targeting only the wealthy, but somehow, we all have to pay it now, too.

The populace has every reason to be skeptical of taxes ‘targeting’ only the wealthiest among us.

Good luck getting enough volunteers to work in and maintain a sewer system.

I accept your concession.

I have seen comments like this thousands of times, but I’ve never seen a single example of anyone genuinely expressing this sentiment.

Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it’s just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It’s absurd.

Small number of investments? Billionaires have shitloads of investments, what are you talking about?

Some women like that little dance of rejecting and the guy not giving up, but even then only if they think you’re cute beforehand. But most women will just find that creepy and off-putting.

The big frustration comes with the fact that the “most” women above are still happily consuming the romance movies/novels with the toxic paradigm you describe, along with the “some”. And then they’ll turn around and get indignant about it existing in real life, while promoting/encouraging it culturally simultaneously.

Look at the colossal sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey, what percentage of that do you think came from men?

Do you believe that anytime anyone agrees to do something, but only if they get paid, that they’re being exploited?

so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

Precisely.

Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them.

Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven’t stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women’s perception of men as a whole.

The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

don’t know what subjective is lol

No, you don’t. Subjective means an opinion, a value judgment that’s not tied to actual facts. For example, someone liking the exact same food more than another person. It’s the same food, neither of you are “correct” or “incorrect” about how delicious it is, because that’s subjective.

Nothing I said was subjective. Condoms are objectively less convenient than any of the other methods I mentioned, for the factual reasons I stated. No method of contraception is less convenient than one that is a separate object that you need to physically possess on your person at the time of the sexual act. Barrier methods are objectively the least convenient method to prevent pregnancy.

You invented some arbitrary metric of “birth control is only convenient and effective when you don’t have to carry it with you,”

No, you made that up. I’ve only ever been talking about relative convenience. You entered this conversation when you responded to my stating the fact that female methods are more convenient than the one male method.

However, it is a fact that even if all other things were equal, ‘have to carry it with you’ is objectively less convenient than ‘don’t have to carry it with you’. Any condition, any “have to”, that applies to a method is a mark against its convenience. Obviously.

As if it’s such a strain on your gentle countenance to bear the massive weight of less than 2 grams.

What a ridiculous straw man, I never said one word about the weight being a factor. It costs nothing not to be disingenuous, you know.

Do you not carry your phone, wallet, keys, and trousers with you?

I’m going to set aside the idiotic false equivalence for a second, to point out that you’re inadvertently agreeing with me.

You carry your phone, wallet, and keys, because you have to—it’s literally an inconvenience. If your locks were biometric and therefore you didn’t have to carry your keys around, that would be more convenient. Being able to use Google Wallet et al to purchase things without having your wallet on you is more convenient than having to carry your wallet around.

You’re an absolute tosser. Just say you hate women, mate. that’d be easier.

I understand that you’re very aware dishonesty is easier (as you demonstrated with all of the disingenuous nonsense above), but I’m not a dishonest person.

Imagine being so outraged over someone stating the fact that condoms are less convenient than contraception methods that are one and done for weeks/months/years, that you’re literally insulting them and have actually convinced yourself that they hate women!

How foolish.

I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically “do”.

anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do

sounds like you’re saying ‘would post anything worse than they already post’.

You haven’t been on the Internet very long, huh?

they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.

You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?

That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.

It’s basically giving uncle Sam a list of targets to hit next.

How, exactly? Even if you use your real name as your username (which no one does), unless it’s very uncommon, that still won’t uniquely identify you.

Source?

they’re easy to carry around

It doesn’t matter how easy they are to carry around, having to carry them around is by definition less convenient than not having to carry anything around.

your “argument” is entirely subjective.

You don’t know what “subjective” means. There’s nothing subjective about ‘having to carry this thing around and have it with you every time you have sex is less convenient than doing something once and being set for months/years’. That’s just a fact.

What an idiotic article, from the headline down.

Locally replacing some letters with some other letters is going to make Microsoft’s CEO cry? Really?

Also, I’ll not be using Chrome, lol.

“Would you wear a seatbelt if you knew you weren’t going to crash?”

I don’t know that. I don’t know the condom isn’t preventing anything.

Dude…It’s a hypothetical…the “whole point” is that people only use condoms (and seat belts) because they do something that the user needs done. That’s why people wear seat belts in their car, but not on their couch at home.

No one actually enjoys using condoms, and as soon as their functionality (contraception and/or STI prevention) isn’t needed, they’re ditched immediately. Just like how people don’t put on a seat belt when they’re getting into their car to sit stationary in their driveway and listen to music or something.

yeah but that’s a goalpost move because the topic is contraception, not STIs.

It’s also not even an argument, because there is no real “option” to compare condoms to re STIs at all, and the fact that they’re good for that takes nothing away from the main thing that makes them inconvenient, being “An object you have to physically carry around with you and have on your person in the moment every single time you have sex”.

It’s one of those things that’s beneficial but not profitable (like the postal service), and therefore a ‘service’ that the government should be providing with tax revenue, imo.