>chud gets kicked off of big brother for beating a woman
>Became the new Jordan Peterson in 2022
How did he do it?
>chud gets kicked off of big brother for beating a woman. >Became the new Jordan Peterson in 2022
>chud gets kicked off of big brother for beating a woman
>Became the new Jordan Peterson in 2022
How did he do it?
Same way that Juden Pidorsen did, prey upon a generation of susceptible, disenfranchised, fatherless men.
Literally this.
>susceptible, disenfranchised, fatherless men.
Could have just said troons.
Go back
Anybody who disagrees with this is revealing way more about themselves than they realize.
so men with no drive, lost in life should not seek any help at all because you dont like people from the internet?
There are ways to seek help without resorting to following pseudointellectual cult leaders like Peterson who can barely keep their own lives striaght.
Exactly, y'all should shut the frick up and die on the job
>fatherless men
So it’s not the fault of the single mothers at all?
No, it's usually because men don't want to see their kids.
>it's the moms fault for trying her best!
>not the dads for being absent
Absolutely moronic. Your mother deserves better than you
stop shilling this moron he's never going to be a thing
most inorganic plug I've seen on this whole website
>inorganic
This gay started popping everywhere in the last weeks, not just here.
considering we're the wastebin for reddit, twitch and twitter now it's hardly surprising he ended up here
the entire thing is one big grifting scheme
hes all over israelitetube. The israelites are using him as the next toxic masculinity guy to blame us for or something
Bro he just had a debate with Xqc the biggest streamer in the world
Chuds are stupid and latch on to any friend/dad simulator they can
literally my jaw and chin
the fact that he became the Top G despite his beta chin genetics just makes him even more alpha
prussian as frick
>Le resting CHUD face
Huwhytebois be cursed and shiieeeeet
>can't chin knockout me if I have no chin
Checkmate Chincucks
>chincucks
>not chinlets
>can't chin knockout me
underaged Black person detected kys
Chuds stay winning
gamma boy
whew
that chin explains why he has such a good kickboxing record, you cant knock someone out on the chin if they dont have one to hit
he's paying a simp army to create clip channels and spam his clips everywhere
I don't know what a "chud" is or watch Big Brother because I am not a homosexual
Am I supposed to know who this is?
Oh, it's Big Brother? OP, get back to your containment general thread.
>stand in your way
what do you do?
heem him
he sleep
punch him, then turn 360 degrees and walk away
but then you'd just be facing him again if you turn 360 degrees you moron troon
>his "chin" is just neckbeard
is that the guy who claims he never watched star wars? O_o
>slap
>stop disrespecting women
>go back to what i was doing
What is this dudes problem?
severe insecurity. bases his entire self-worth on what women think of him.
I don't get why Cinemaphileers hate him so much
Yes, he obviously is shilling for his "money school" or whatever, but he is still dropping an insane amount of red pills at the same time. He makes every leftist/beta seethe and dismantles them logically and controlled. Andrew is an ally, if you are moronic enough to buy his program you were NGMI anyway
you answered your own question. Cinemaphile is full of leftist betas
>and dismantles them logically and controlled
please do post one clip of andrew getting outsmarted. I'll wait
You doing it for free or for a fee?
>deflecting
dilate
>he is still dropping an insane amount of red pills at the same time
THIS is what I hate about him. I hate this entire culture of everything being DROPPING HOT TAKES AND MEMES AND DROPPING THE REDPILLS LIKE A GIGACHAD
The people talking like this are either children or mentally stunted and neither deserve a voice nor attention beyond mockery
I bet you think Noam Chomsky is intelligent.
>
he is
Chomsky made some contribution to the field of linguistics half a century ago before settling into being a giant directionbrained dipshit. I bet you only became aware of Chomsky after he became a disheveled mess in the last couple years.
Go back to your Twitch chat homosexual you're not welcome here.
Lmao look at the SEETHE this comment created.
These homosexuals can never admit the genesis of their ideals is a fraud so they’ll hack at the competition claiming it is what they are- empty vessels parroting grifters.
Which is what Noam is, a fricking israelite grifter.
>ally
In what fricking way does regurgitating surface level stuff he found here to fund his investing and PUA+ program remotely make him an ally? He's just another in a long line of homosexuals trying to profit off of chan culture.
>some autist on Cinemaphile says something
>normies don't care
>tate says the same thing
>millions of people are now listening
it's simple, anon.
Why the frick would you want normalgays and their moronic asses trying to interpret or execute what they thing we mean? Normoids are a mistake and the more distracted you can keep them the better. The last time we got a large amount of normalgays ginned up on chanshit we got the homosexualry that was the Q Patriot movement. Why the frick would you ever want more of that?
Because he's an underage zoomer from Twitch chat who thinks it's GIGACHAD to shill his e celeb
>Why the frick would you want normalgays and their moronic asses trying to interpret or execute what they thing we mean?
because we want less trannies and sjw homosexualry. was that too difficult for you to work out? it was blindingly obvious you moron.
>because we want less trannies and sjw homosexualry.
Another direction brained dumbass. What the frick makes you think the kind of moronic normalgay who's susceptible to Tate's bullshit has anything to do with troonery or is in any way useful in holding off the cultural march we're seeing. That's run from the top down utilizing legislative and law enforcement pressures. Normalgays are not principled and are mostly poor morons who cannot to afford to take a stand and resist. The second consequences begin to affect them they'll fold like a lawnchair and take the path of least resistance that maintains their level of entertainment and distraction. All this kind of shit does is move normalgays from the sports sector into the politics sector. Instead of cheering on Notre Dame now they're cheering for BASED CLARENCE. Until of course someone gives them a shiny reason to hate Thomas then they'll start cheering the new flavor the month and call him a pedo adrenochrome consumer. Roping normalgays into culture war/political kayfabe was easily the biggest mistake of the 2010s
>That's run from the top down utilizing legislative and law enforcement pressures.
that doesn't change the fact that the leftoids who have captured institutions can push trannies quicker and more effectively if people resist than if people don't mind.
>Roping normalgays into culture war/political kayfabe was easily the biggest mistake of the 2010s
how was it a mistake when it didn't make things worse, you moron?
it sounds like you're saying that what people really should have done is just not do anything, which is just defeatism and giving your enemy exactly what they want because that just lets them take power quicker and easier than otherwise and make cultural changes permanent faster than otherwise.
Think about it you moron. If leftoids wanted normal people opposing them, if it helped them when normal people opposed them, then they wouldn't be trying to crack down on and discourage that by taking away the reach of people encouraging opposition to them or making an example out of normal people who voice opposition to their agenda.
minority enforced consensus works by making the majority think "everyone else either agrees or has accepted submission so if I object I'll just be made an example of for nothing"
if enough people publicly oppose that the majority feel emboldened to oppose then it is harder for the minority.
you don't win by letting your enemies become even more powerful faster unopposed. the more powerful your enemy gets the lower your chances are of winning.
>how was it a mistake when it didn't make things worse, you moron?
Because it did make everything worse. It made the world way fricking gayer. It didn't help or hurt the progressive agenda but now I have to deal with a bunch of mouth breathing morons studying the alinski's rules for radicals to own the libs and being absolute insufferable dicks everywhere. Nothing changed that mattered and now being out in the world is way more irritating. It was a mistake.
You stupid homosexual.
>hurr why don't you just let the left conquer and spread globohomosexual even faster, it's like so lame that you're resisting, never mind that the left would be decades ahead turning the world into a Black personifed troony dystopia if you didn't resist
you weak fricking homosexual. I'd beat you to death
You won't do shit homosexual. How's about doing something worthwhile instead of dreaming of being kind shit of turd mountain? Leading normalgays around accomplishes nothing. They have no functional value unless you are the one in control of the narrative. The narrative cannot be backfed dumbshit. You've got to take it by force and enforce it to maintain it. No amount of Tates, Yiannopoloses or Fuenteses will ever accomplish what you dream of. They're not on the same track. The best you can get is donations from the dumbasses to fund your stupid lifestyle. You'll never make a change of value utilizing them.
yeah because you aren;t in front of me, but if you were I'd beat you until you begged for mercy you defeatist little homosexual
a second ago your argument was that people opposing leftism was bad because it annoyed you, now you're suddenly saying that actually it's bad because it's counter productive.
You're just a falseflagging leftypol Black person trying to convince people that actually they should stop opposing leftism because then somehow the left will suddenly lose and stop spreading globohomo.
such obvious bullshit.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. The entire time I've been arguing that trying to harness normalgays for counterculture purposes doesn't actually accomplish any goals related to overthrowing the prevailing culture. All it does is cause sub100iq idiots to flood political and social spheres they normally wouldn't be in and shit the place up. They're neither beneficial nor strictly harmful, they're just fricking gay to have to be around. That's all. And that Tate and other grifters like him do nothing of value other than grow the population of woke/redpilled dumbasses who accomplish nothing but lining the grifters' pockets. I know election tourist zoomers like you have a hard time understanding this because this was your first rodeo but I guarantee you in 15 years you'll come to better appreciate what I'm trying to tell you.
It's blatantly obvious that if people did not oppose globohomosexual then the left would be able to implement globohomosexual even faster , so your claim that people opposing globohomosexual has no benefit is clearly totally fricking wrong.
infact it's so blatantly wrong that you must know it's wrong so you're obviously a falseflagging leftoid trying to convince people that actually giving up and letting the left become stronger faster and enact their agenda with less opposition is the best strategy.
even though obviously facing no opposition from people is what the left wants as shown by the fact that they try to silence and reduce the reach of people who spread and encourage opposition to leftoid globohomosexual and try to make an example of those who publicly oppose globohomo.
so everything you're saying is obviously totally wrong and would only be said by a falseflagging leftoid trying to encourage rightwingers to do what the left wants.
this is also obvious by the fact that you haven't said anything about what would more effectively stop or hinder the left than getting people to oppose them.
>losing your composure so hard you start reddit spacing uncontrollably
fricking go back already jesus christ. The solution is something your misquetoast teenage ass lacks the balls to wrestle with harming politicians. That is the only way. You and I both know the voting system is beyond compromised so why are you still beating around the bush with all this "if only we could muster a larger coalition we could surely win next time" cope. Surely you're not so naive.
you stupid frick. Even if you believe that then how are you going to get people willing to do that? By spreading your ideas and making them more popular
so once again your claim "making people oppose globohomosexual makes no difference" is false even by your reasoning because the more people oppose globohomo, the more of them will be willing to do what you're talking about.
which btw is a stupid and false idea because those incidents do not cause change but rather are the results of mass opposition that genuinely cause the change.
Read again you seem to still struggle with reading comprehension. Try to understand my position as it is, not how you want to shoehorn it to fit your prepackaged grifter supplied talking points.
Everything I wrote is perfectly accurate. prove how what I said is contradicted by what you wrote or falsely represents what you wrote
>he still can't understand
let me spell it out for you. Normalgays will always always always take the path of least resistance. They only hold positions Tate espouses because nobody with power or control or influence over them has applied pressure. The second pressure or worse, consequences come down they'll flip to accepting globohomosexual faster than you can blink. They are not reliable, they are not useful, they are followers and cheerleaders who hitch to the bandwagon of the strongest man. Right now globohomosexual is the strongman and the second its tendrils reach into their personal lives they will comply with shocking speed. They don't do or contribute anything, they just posture and root for the guy who wins. How did the ol hearts and minds strategy work in Afghanistan dummy? Well I guess you probably don't remember that but look into it and you might come to understand why it won't work.
now you're just repeating yourself and blabbering about irrelevant things when I specifically challenged you to demonstrate how exactly what I wrote in
misrepresented what you wrote in
>gets ass blown out on the nature of the normalgay
>blabbering about irrelevant things
I accept your concession.
People worshipping ecelebs who take their audience's points and water them down to sell back to them is beyond pathetic.
>but he is still dropping an insane amount of red pills at the same time.
That's the problem
If you are redpilled and not blackpilled in 2022 you're an absolute moron
>blackpilled
>not whitepilled
okay bro enjoy your abyss, or your basement, i mean
>muh troony matrix pill analogies
>in 20222
take the go outside and fix your life pill
or, just go outside and fix your life
maybe you can meet me and take my schlong down your throat pill
>maybe you can meet me and take my schlong down your throat pill
why are all americans homosexual?
Its all a fricking chapotroony scheme to take away from “redpills”, leftists from Democracy Now or whatever israelite funded org disseminates these red herrings.
>ally
Do you honestly think if you ever meet him, he would give a flying frick about you and your views? Even if they're simillar to his? I mean, this is the guy who laughs at the idea of reading books, because he can spent this time being "awesome" instead.
>He makes every leftist/beta seethe and dismantles them logically and controlled. Andrew is an ally, if you are moronic enough to buy his program you were NGMI anyway
This is what happens to your brain when you're a terminally online dork. I hope you're 15.
Being into this shit in current year is cringe bro
>he says the same things we do but in a moronic doucebag way while having no chin and being bald!
It's because he's an self conscious beta that worries too much about what women think of him. This homosexual said he'd never eat sushi infront of a woman out of shame, how fricking chucked do you have to be to not do something you enjoy because a woman is around? Fricking moronic homosexual
You should hate all ecelebs. Imagine not hating all ecelebs. Tiktok Black person cattle
He's actually very reasonable and logical if you watch his debate with xqc
How are people not tired of this conservative vs liberal rhetoric yet? It's as if the world stopped moving past 2016. Look at this Andrew Tate homosexual for example. He went on BBUK in 2016 to try and BTFO the waymen and gays and now 6 years later people are picking him up as if it's still 2016 and he JUST got kicked off the show and is at the height of controversy.
It's fricking bizzare. Has time actually stopped in some manner?
The answer is that people just like being entertained, they don't really care about politics at all, it's all just reality TV.
im watching the clip and its just a bunch of moronic brits yammering infront of the camera i can't take it anymore
when does tate get btfo'd?
The amount of mind control and manipulation that went on in the past few years dwarves the likes of MKULTRA or a DoD PSYOP. People have legitimate brain damage from being fricked directly in the deepest reaches of their mind nonstop and they don't even know it.
>chud
Only whites can be chuds.
who?
I'm starting to like this moron just because of how much he makes libtards seethe.
Does he actually make libtards seethe though?
no but you know who does? Hitler.
that's why he's my favorite
He does because they can't tell he's not a 100% serious.
Like it matters if he's serious or not. What matters is that he makes money doing it.
Not my problem.
It's absolutely a grift, but when your audience thinks you're genuine there's no functional difference.
most "right wing" pundits are grifters. It's basically impossible to actually learn about how things work and continue believing in right wing talking points, so they just play their audiences for money.
whether you're left or right ring is about your disposition or what moral foundations you follow, not what facts of the world you believe you moron.
Leftoids only value harm avoidance and fairness, whereas right wing people equally value harm avoidance, fairness, purity, loyalty and authority
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Liberals-and-conservatives-rely-on-different-sets-Graham-Haidt/469f40500c6fb37340c69967df95ad94b9285d16
being left or right wing isn't determined by what facts you know at all, it's determined by what your moral priorities are.
>whether you're left or right ring is about your disposition or what moral foundations you follow, not what facts of the world you believe you moron.
No, the right is very explicit in their denial of science.
ok sure thing. I'm right wing. Tell me what scientific facts I deny in order to uphold my right wing values and support right wing figures and parties.
you realise the answer is nothing, don;'t you homosexual? Because saying that you're left wing or right wing isn't making a factual claim, it's expressing something about your intentions thus what you want to do thus your priorities thus your morality.
I could believe in every single factual statement you believe in and still be right wing because my priorities and thus my morality is different from yours.
and btw the left denies the science of human nature and evolution much more than the right.
>I'm right wing.
really? i couldn't tell
thanks for proving my point that your claim is false and that I'm right in saying that
>whether you're left or right wing is about your disposition or what moral foundations you follow, not what facts of the world you believe
Isn't 'pro life' a right wing thing? That clearly denies basic scientific facts.
Took me 2 seconds to come up with that, by the way.
>Isn't 'pro life' a right wing thing? That clearly denies basic scientific facts.
Yes it is right win, no it doesn't deny basic scientific facts. in fact it;s the left wing slogans that deny scientific facts more often. The scientific fact explained by the field of embryology is that life starts at fertilization.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
thank you for providing us with an excellent example of leftoid ignorance.
None of these say "life begins at fertilization".
Did you even read your own link?
>The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
>The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.
These statements only ever talk about the point at which embryos start developing, which no one has ever disagreed with. This, of course, has little to do with what it means to murder a human.
Removing human cells from someone's body happens all the time, like when I got my galbladder removed.
>None of these say "life begins at fertilization".
yes they do you illiterate fricking moron
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
>***the new organism BEGINS with fertilisation***
a New organism is a new living being , meaning a new life.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. ]
>***fertilization is the landmark where a new , distinct human organism is formed, not gametogenesis ***
A new human organism , thus a new living human, a new life
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
>***the zygote is the start of an animal's life, ***
therefore fertilisation, which is when the sperm and egg combine to produce a zygote, is when life begins
" At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun " [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
Is that not clear enough for you , you illiterate, braindamaged leftoid troony homosexual?
>a New organism is a new living being , meaning a new life.
Still being filtered by terms lmao
Every cell that composes your body is considered an organism, according to your logic every single one of them is a living being and a life? This is the part where you're an insane schizo denying basic science because you do not comprehend it.
>Every cell that composes your body is considered an organism,
No they aren't you dumbass, lol. look up what a multicellular organism is you scientifically illiterate moron.
A human is an organism belonging to the species homosexual sapiens. When you typed your reply with your hands did now, your reply was not typed by billions of human organism, it was typed by 1 human organism, you.
you aren't even aware of how fricking stupid and biologically ignorant and uninformed the things you're saying are.
You just linked a princeton article's reference page that explains what a zygote is.
Are you okay bro?
he's a conservative, of course he's not ok. he lives in terminal fear of everything.
>he's a conservative, of course he's not ok. he lives in terminal fear of everything.
are you moronic ? That page quotes scientific textbooks explaining that life begins at fertilization.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
literally just read the fricking quotes you moron
here I've even made it easy for you
here's a princeton article that actually discusses the nuance of the question you've raised, unlike anything in the article that you've linked. decent read.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
>That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
Ok so he's right, of course, it doesn't take a high intellect to understand that life begins at conception if you know what a sperm and an ovum is, rather, you require ill will to be able to deny it, a reason that doesn't come from reasoning but from passions.
I passed the 4th grade so I'm aware that the embryo is a part of the cycle of life. Apparently it's new information to you though, and you're not even comprehending it correctly if you think out of context blurbs support your talking points. Maybe your slogan, if you're willfully ignorant enough.
no, it's new information to leftoids who deny the fact that life begins at fertilization because they want an easier time justifying murdering their own children for their convenience.
> you're not even comprehending it correctly if you think out of context blurbs
lol I love when leftoids make claims that they know they can't substantiate so they don;t even attempt to prove but they make the claim anyway hoping it sounds authorititative.
prove how what I said shows incorrect comprehension of the sources I've posted.
prove that the quotes are out of context.
go ahead.
obviously you won't be able to but since you feel too butthurt to just admit that you're wrong , go ahead and write another post with claims with no evidence and empty posturing.
>an easier time justifying murdering their own children
easier than what? there is no difficulty involved.
I really hope you're just shitposting and not actually this moronic. You know that sperm is scientifically considered 'alive' as well right?
Imagine being filtered by terms lmao
A sperm is a component of the father. the same way a cheek cell scraped from your cheek is a component of you. You don't kill a human life when you destroy a sperm any more than I kill you when I destroy the cheek cell that has been scraped from the inside of your cheek
But a zygote is a new, distinct, living human orgnanism itself.
the quotes in the link literally explain this . how about you read them and sceintifically educate yourself, leftoid moron
>a cell from your cheek is different from the cell you shot our of your dick because....
>WELL IT JUST FRICKING IS OKAY?
nice argument
No, that's the point I'm making you moron.
A cell scraped from your cheek is not different from a sperm. both of them are just components of you. Neither of them constitute a new distinct, living human organism, i.e. a human life.
A zygote on the other hand does constitute a new, distinct, living human organism for the reasons explained here
>A zygote on the other hand does constitute a new, distinct, living human organism
AND it doesn't make a difference. Whether the cell/fetus/etc is "a life" is not the issue for the rest of us.
You want to kill your child in the womb but you can't find any doctor to do it?
NOT MY PROBLEM
Die from using coathanger?
NOT MY PROBLEM
It's your fault, your actions, your problem. Want to misbehave? Go ahead and die then.
are you being purposely irrational?
>You want to kill your child in the womb but you can't find any doctor to do it?
not a problem where I live, but that's besides the point because that is not the topic.
The topic is whether your definition of "life" is relevant to non-conservatives, and the answer is no, so if you want to maybe try to convince others, try using an argument we actually find convincing. if not, you can save your words and save your time.
Whether it's your problem or not, people are being harmed by it. The idea that you can just convince humans to not have sex is one of the dumbest solutions to a problem conservatives have ever come up with.
The solution is marriage, which democrats destroyed by including perversion like homosexuality in it.
Sex makes children, I have not decided that, you can either make decisions with this truth in mind or literally die because if you can't understand something this basic then you lose all my sympathy which is reserved only to good people, not the ones that dedicate their lives to evil.
Expecting everyone to get married is also massively moronic.
Die then.
You are causing your own harm and harming other you fricking abuser. Abuse spreads through abuse, you just want to spread it further.
>You are causing your own harm
Why do you keep making this about me? I haven't done any of the things you've attributed to me.
Humans do predictably cause their own harm, yeah. In a number of ways. That's why we implement policy to diminish that harm. Road laws, for example.
>I have not decided that, you can either make decisions with this truth in mind or literally die because if you can't understand something this basic then you lose all my sympathy which is reserved only to good people, not the ones that dedicate their lives to evil.
Yeah, so you don't actually care about reducing harm, you just want people you don't like to suffer.
This is some dank neckbeard cope
>says the science-denier gay
Confucius say men who fart in church
see
>The scientific fact explained by the field of embryology is that life starts at fertilization
so what? ignorant rightwingers have their definitions of what constitutes "life" and then impute that onto the rest of the world. i don't care about whether a spermcell or fetus constitutes "life" to begin with. it may influence your view but it is not what influences our view.
>leftoid denying scientific fact explained by the field of embryology as "ignorant right wingers"
lol typical science denying leftoid.
at least you're admitting it.
>implying its science that gives people rights and not the law
lul, right-wingers in charge of philosophizing.
Oh so you're changing the subject to rights?
When the original question was whether the zygote is a human life?
So that means you're conceding the ground that it is a fact that the zygote , embryo, fetus is a human life , so the right wing position is correct and the leftoid slogans like "it's not even alive" are wrong.
>embryo, fetus is a human life
if you could read you would've already noticed by now that i've said many times it doesnt MATTER if the fetus is categorized as "life" or "not life".
>Oh so you're changing the subject to rights?
no.
Ok so you're giving up on the original claim from
you've conceded.
Now, whether you admit it or not, the fact that you're still objecting to being pro-life despite having conceded that the unborn human is alive means that you are changing the topic to rights because you're basically saying that you admit that the unborn human being is alive but you think it should be ok to murder him anyway, which is obviously a question of rights and whether the unborn human has the same right not to be murdered that other innocent humans do.
>Ok so you're giving up on the original claim from
Took me 2 seconds to come up with that, by the way.
>you've conceded.
i never made the claim.
To clarify, i'm trying to help you communicate more effectively by letting you know you're wasting time on a question only you care about, namely the question of whether a fetus is alive.
>you think it should be ok to murder him anyway
yes, and i consider it an act of charity and compassion toward the child
That's obviously false as shown by the fact that many people in this thread falsely argued that life does not begin at fertilization.
since you're admitting that they were wrong to deny that obviously that doesn;t include you.
>i consider it an act of charity and compassion toward the child
Right , depriving someone of somerthing that belongs to them and that they would appreciate is so compassionate.
oh wait that;s actually the opposite of being compassionate.
>b-b-b-but life isn't worthwhile
Not for most unwanted babies, as shown by the revealed preferences of unwanted babies, the vast majority of whom vote with their feet and reveal their preference for living over not living and thus reveal that they consider life worth while by never committing suicide.
So you're depriving unborn babies of something that belongs to them and that the vast majority of them would consider worth while, which isn't compassionate at all and which is wrong.
>many people in this thread falsely argued that life does not begin at fertilization.
who? cite the post.
start with
then click through the replies
Link the reply that claims that life begins at birth.
Why?
Because you claimed people were making that argument, so now the onus is on you to demonstrate that.
First it's not me and second, link to me where people claimed that people made this argument, you won't find it because nobody claimed this you fricking filthy disgusting liar.
>Right , depriving someone of somerthing that belongs to them and that they would appreciate is so compassionate.
When you have time, perhaps contemplate Ecclesiastes 6:1-6.
It even says (v. 3) that even an improper burial can be so insulting that it were better to NOT be born (!)
>So you're depriving unborn babies of something that belongs to them
we deprive people, animals and plants life all the time. worse yet, we put them in cages to humiliate them for years and years.
Perhaps we can both agree on supporting capital punishment over decades-long prison sentences that don't benefit or reform anyone.
>Perhaps we can both agree on supporting capital punishment over decades-long prison sentences that don't benefit or reform anyone.
the reason capital punishment is bad is because the justice system is not 100% accurate and innocent people will defacto be sentenced to death.
which is better than innocent people being sentenced to decades or entire life in prison.
No it isn't, because then they have a chance at redemption someday.
> It even says (v. 3) that even an improper burial can be so insulting that it were better to NOT be born (!)
that's obviously hyperbole and not actually true.
You're a homosexual. there, I've just insulted you. if you believe what you just said it's now better that you no longer be alive. are you going to have a nice day? obviously not or else you wouldn;t be replying to this post, therefore your actions prove that you yourself beliebe that what you just said is invalid.
>we deprive people, animals and plants life all the time.
Yeah but they're not innocent human beings. it's innocent human life that matters, not scum murderers and thieves or plants or livestock.
It's a good thing to put criminal scum in cages to humiliate them and make them suffer because evil-doers deserve to be made to suffer.
sometimes it's even better to execute them though.
>You're a homosexual. there, I've just insulted you
According to the Bible you're in danger of hell-fire, then.
>that's obviously hyperbole and not actually true.
>the Bible is not actually true
okay
>sometimes it's even better to execute them though.
According to the Bible, all crimes have either capital punishments or monetary fines, there is no prison in the Biblical model. Neither Old or New Testaments prescribe imprisonment. Then again, you don't actually care what the Bible says.
>you don't actually care what the Bible says.
No one should, really. It's wildly inaccurate from both a philosophical, and historical perspective.
But he acts like it isn't, so he is inconsistent in that he bases some arguments on Biblical logical, while rejecting the same when it doesn't benefit him.
I'm not a christian you basedhomosexual moron, and even if I were the claims of a leftoid homosexual possessed by demons like yourself would be false .
it's so cringe and pathetic when leftoid redditors start quoting the bible that they seethe over because they can't get over how butthurt they are at christianity.
I quoted the Bible because I assume you were against abortion on a Christian basis since I have never heard of anyone being opposed to abortion on an atheistic basis.
As for the Bible it doesn't make me seethe, maybe if you could read you'd notice I actually have some degree of respect for this important part of world literature. I disagree with many things in it, but I'm not seething.
>I have never heard of anyone being opposed to abortion on an atheistic basis.
There's plenty of non-christian conservatives and right wingers with basic human decency who realise that murdering innocent human beings is wrong.
There's the group secular pro-life for one organisation.
Even just looking at mainstream christian conservative commentators, all of their arguments showing that abirtion is wrong and that pro-life arguments are invalid require no belief in or reference to the bible whatsoever.
It is hard to believe that you align so much with fundamentalist Protestant/Catholic beliefs without being one of them. You also use their terminology (eg. the way you invoke the concept of guilt or speak of the "inspired word of God") and evince, I'd say, religious Protestant thinking in how you use some of those terms.
It's pretty easy to tell what other posts in this thread are his. I can't tell if he's overdosing on his Daily Wire I.V. or if he's getting paid to post this trash, either way he shouldn't be engaged with.
>nooooooo you're atheist you're supposed to support atheism+ and support sjws noooo stop don't you realise christians want to thump the bible and make gay marriage illegal?? what about the heckin trannerinos and homosexualerinos??? nooooooooooooooooo
what's hard to believe? obviously I prefer living in a society guided by the christian values of my ancestors which made our civilization great than living in a society by run by leftoid homosexuals who happen to be atheist.
oh the concept of being "guilty" i.e. being responsible for committing a crime, is one that's unique to christians?
Only christians believe that people can be guilty?
lmao you leftoids are so seething and obsessed and butthurt about the religion that you've left that it's melted your brains.
you literally think that moral terminology is totally alien and something only theists believe in.
Just because you people are so depraved that you believe murdering innocent babies is ok and that morals are these weird things that only christians believe in , doesn't mean everyone else is.
>y-y-y-you talk like Reagan!!
lol
homosexual
>you talk like Reagan
If that's your takeaway you're even more moronic than I thought.
you're so moronic and unable to respond to secular arguments against abortion that you have to tell yourself that I'm really an undercover christain to stop yourself from having a breakdown. typical frail leftoid homosexual.
you're basically unhinged and you're talking about
>a breakdown
if i think you're lying, should i not mention it?
your reliance on insults makes you come across as a hysterical woman.
>y-y-y-you're unhinged
lmao is this what leftoids resort to when all their shitty arguments have been blown out? calling people crazy?
you can claim I'm lying, but your reasoning for thinking that is complete bullshit and smells of desperation out of being unable to respond to secular pro-life arguments.
I'm not relying on insults because what I'm doing is refuting he arugments being given with facts and logic, and then in addition I'm insulting you leftoids after already showing that you're wrong.
>desperation out of being unable to respond to secular pro-life arguments.
it's not desperation my friend, it's bemusement. I wish you could see how funny and eccentric your one-man political/philosophical position is (or at least seems) to the rest of the world.
I don't really know what to respond to, since your position seems inherently contradictory, hence my previous statement that the next thing you'll tell me is you're a israeli nazi, or a black klansman.
it clearly is out of desperation since as soon as you were presented with a secular argument for abortion being wrong
you tried to deflect towards christianity and since that failed you;ve been totally lost and unable to justify your position and unable to respond to the argument at all.
What is there to justify? Abortion is legal where I live and will likely remain so, as it should. I knew a girl who got pregnant around 15/16 and her getting an abortion was definitely the right thing to do.
I'm sure she'd have gotten caught up in sex-work by now if she'd have kept the baby.
The baby would most likely have forced this girl into a life of infinite misery as a prostitute.
As to your argument it basically seems to be you dont believe we have the right to abort babies based on your personal concept of that babies are innocent and "therefore" they must be born.
There's a REASON most people are only anti-abortion due to religious perspective, and it is the fact that it requires magical thinking.
you have to justify the immorality pointed out in
I guess I'll have to copy and paste it so you'll feel compelled to actually answer the argument instead of ignoring it.
>>i consider abortion an act of charity and compassion toward the child
>Right , depriving someone of somerthing that belongs to them and that they would appreciate is so compassionate.
oh wait that;s actually the opposite of being compassionate.
>>b-b-b-but life isn't worthwhile
>Not for most unwanted babies, as shown by the revealed preferences of unwanted babies, the vast majority of whom vote with their feet and reveal their preference for living over not living and thus reveal that they consider life worth while by never committing suicide.
>So you're depriving unborn babies of something that belongs to them and that the vast majority of them would consider worth while, which isn't compassionate at all and which is wrong.
>So you're depriving unborn babies of something that belongs to them
life doesn't "belong" to us, it is owed us anymore than it is owed to animals or insects.
Can I ask, would you EVER support abortion? What if the mother's life was at risk?
Do you have any compassion at all?
it is *not
>Yeah but they're not innocent human beings. it's innocent human life that matters, not scum murderers and thieves or plants or livestock.
Sounds like if we just wait a few years, every human being becomes inevitably guilty of something you'd consider sin, and then deserves not only death but eternal hell.
obviously not, because not every human being becomes a murderer, you moron.
most sins have capital punishment (execution) prescribed in the Bible, not just murder. I also point to eternal hell - obviously that is worse than death/abortion.
Lol, so you're a right-wing, atheist opposed to abortion?
Next you'll tell me you're a nazi rabbi or a black klansman or something.
that's right. murdering innocent human beings for your convenience is blatantly evil even if you don't believe in the God of the bible or that the bible is the inspired word of God.
there's no contradiction between being against baby murder and not being a christian.
Only unprincipled leftoids try to delude themselves into believing that there's nothing wrong with murdering innocent human beings in order to lessen their guilt.
There are even christian leftoids who delude themselves into thinking that murdering babies is ok because their loyalty to leftism or their desire to live the single lifestyle is greater than their human decency.
>murdering innocent human beings in order to lessen their guilt.
>even if you don't believe in the God of the bible or that the bible is the inspired word of God.
> leftoid homosexual possessed by demons
t. definitely not a Christian - i'm a secular, right-wing atheist, i swear!
yes that's right. What's surprising about that? Oh right, leftoids are so depraved that any discussion of morality seems alien to them and religious lol.
>Only unprincipled leftoids try to delude themselves into believing that there's nothing wrong with murdering innocent human beings in order to lessen their guilt.
yes, that's right. Leftoids feel guilty for murdering their innocent unborn babies and so try to delude themselves into thinking things like "the fetus isn't alive" or "there's nothing wrong with killing innocent human beings" in order to lessen their guilt.
what part of this fact requires belief in Jesus? None of it does.
>>even if you don't believe in the God of the bible or that the bible is the inspired word of God.
yes, and? I don't believe either of those things, but even though I don't , murdering innocent human beings is still blatantly wrong.
>> leftoid homosexual possessed by demons
that's right. I call you a possessed by demons because that's highly appropriate language to describe you with. Christians created the ideal language to label you sodomites . It's actually extremely appropriate to use the word demon because it brings to mind the idea of something evil, and what you're proposing is that evil.
LOL your position is so indefensible that you have to beg me to be christian so that you don't have to respond to arguments showing that murdering innnocent human beings is wrong
Yes I am not a christian and I'm against murdering babies.
and you know what will make you even more butthurt? I think society was better when it was much more christian. If I was alive 100 years ago I'd happily pretend to be christian and persecute open atheists who brought discord to society and undermined the moral fabric. I'd light the fire.
>How do you do fellow atheists: the post
Your talking points are literally the product of Reagan galvanizing the evangelical voter base and the rest of his party realizing they could poach otherwise working class voters to their party lines without affecting any meaningful change outside the interest of their corporate benefactors.
Your moral stance is based around poster boards and bullet points in a speech. You should have a nice day immediately.
Why? There is no argument whatsoever that good or evil exist in a universal sense outside of the context of some perspective. Everything just is and it happens. You're a midwit moron trying to pass off personal philosophy as some ultimate truth.
>le nothing is good or bad maaannn
>everything is ok maaaaannnn
>what?! are you preventing a woman murdering her baby?!?! You can't do that! it's wrong!!
most moronic midwit hypocrite redditor position.
How can you kill something that's not alive?
wrong. see
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
>muh sperm is alive!
>prolife articles won't be biased
Kek. Doctors say 16 weeks, the Bible says life is when you first breath. Nobody believes a baby is alive at conception
>Nobody believes a baby is alive at conception
false
those aren't pro-life articles you moron. they're quotations from embryology textbooks.
and they're saying that the zygote , i..e the fusion of the sperm and the egg during fertilisation, is a new human life.
They aren't saying that a sperm is a new human life, the sperm is just a part of the father. if you destroy a sperm you aren't killing a human being any more than if you scrape a cheek cell off your cheek then destroy it.
>they aren't pro life articles moron
Oh no no no
Point one out then. You cant
>Point one out then. You cant
I can. Me.
I have a brain. Life starts at the zygote.
>I have a brain.
Disputable.
False
Don't care. You murder babies you deserve capital punishment.
You have Atilla yet to prove a fetus is still alive moron. When I cum In a sock am I "killing muh babies"?
Kek exactly what I fricking thought. Nobody besides moronic Christians thinks this
>>they aren't pro life articles moron
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Is nothing but a list of quotations from embryology textbooks you moron.
you're just looking for an excuse to avoid acknowledging scientific facts that BTFO your biologically illiterate, science-denying, leftoid worldview
Why don't you read the link you neet
>you murder babies
This is a liberal tactic kek. You haven't even proved a embryo is alive. Your dumb Christian homosexualry probably thinks cumming in a sock is "killing muh babies!"
You don't argue in good faith.
>still can't back his claims
>BUT IM the one arguing in bad faith
Holy cope
I'm not whoever you were arguing with before.
>jumps into argument
>doesn't make any rebuttals or claims
>just came to be moronic
Good backpeddel anon. 8/10
>no heartbeat
>can't see
>can't hear
>doesn't even have lungs
>a single cell sperm entering a egg means its a human being
>it's alive!
moronic
What have I backpedaled on
if you weren't totally scientifically ignorant, you'd realise that none of those things make any difference to the meaning of something being a living organism.
How about you read a textbook on embryology or biology in general and stop denying the science, kid?
>living organism
Notice you said organism and not a human being
I already did read the link and shows that I'm right and you're wrong and life starts at fertilization
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
>***the new organism BEGINS with fertilisation***
a New organism is a new living being , meaning a new life.
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" [O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. ]
>***fertilization is the landmark where a new , distinct human organism is formed, not gametogenesis ***
A new human organism , thus a new living human, a new life
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
>***the zygote is the start of an animal's life, ***
therefore fertilisation, which is when the sperm and egg combine to produce a zygote, is when life begins
" At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun " [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
>A new life has begun
Is that not clear enough for you , you illiterate, braindamaged leftoid troony homosexual?
>90% of these quotes are from the 70s-90s
Lol what a moron
He should calirfy
>Nobody with a brain thinks infants are alive at conception
>Nobody with a brain thinks infants are alive at conception
False
are you claiming that new scientific evidence has been discovered making these textbooks on cloning and embryology wrong such that it is in fact not true that the zygote is a living human organism?
Go ahead and prove it then. show the evidence.
Obviously you won't be able to because it's factually true that human life begins at fertilization.
>posts studies but only studies from 50 years ago and it only shows 3 sentences out of the whole study
>that makes it true!
>studies from 50 years ago
see
>it only shows 3 sentences out of the whole study
lol are you claiming that these quotes from embryology textbooks are out of context? such that in reality , even though they say "human life starts at fertilization" the next sentence it says "just kidding, actually human life starts 2/3 of the way through pregnancy for some reason" ?
Then why don't you go ahead and prove that.
Obviously you won't be able to , because the quotes are not out of context, so your complaint that I am only posting 3 sentences, as though the meaning will change if I posted more of the textbooks, is a totally disingenuous attempt to squirm away and muddy the waters because you know you don't have any facts or valid logical argument to support your position.
>It's a good thing to put criminal scum in cages to humiliate them and make them suffer
"human life" clearly means nothing to you so your arguments are all hollow.
innocent human life means something to me. unborn children are innocent. criminal scum like murderers are not innocent humans so it's a good thing when they are punished and made to suffer.
saying my arguments are hollow implies that I'm being a hypocrite with my other stances, but clearly I am not. You can't show any hypocrisy in me thinking that killing unborn children is wrong because they are innocent human lives but not thinking that killing murderers is wrong because they are not innocent human lives.
I know you leftoids hate decency and love evil and depravity so you do nothing but fetishise and glorify and champion criminal scum like murderers while advocating for the murder of innocent unborn babies.
>saying my arguments are hollow implies that I'm being a hypocrite with my other stances,
no it just means your arguments are hollow (ie. unconvincing).
assuming you actually are a non-christian (which you probably are), i think most christians would actually be confused by your position.
you said that because I don't value human life my argument against abortion is hollow.
the validity of an argument is independent of the other stances that person holds, so saying that my argument is unconvincing given my other stances makes no sense.
What you were really getting at is that somehow it's contradictory or hypocritical for me to be against abortion but not value the human life of death penalties.
That is obviously what you were insinuating and I've demonstrated in
why your reasoning is false and there's nothing hypocritical or contradictory about me holding those two stances at all.
> i think most christians would actually be confused by your position.
I've spoken to a lot of christians and most of them are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty for basically the same reason I am.
but the fact that you're still desperately trying to deflect to christianity just shows how incapable you are of defending your position without channelling your unresolved butthurt against christianity to try and go "but what about your bible which says this?!?!"
>you said that because I don't value human life my argument against abortion is hollow.
You come across as a person going through a phase - 10 years from now, i doubt you'll still believe this.
Your "argument" is unconvincing for a multiplicity of reasons, including the fact that you are a one-man opinion or alternatively you're a christian making some kind of experiment to see if you can argue against abortion without quoting the Bible.
>I've spoken to a lot of christians and most of them are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty for basically the same reason I am.
It is also common for most christians to admit they only hold the positions they hold because of their religion.
Who determines innocence?
And why should anyone care about your personal definition thereof?
innocence means lack of guilt. Guilt that you have committed a crime. So if someone has not committed a crime they're innocent.
Did you really need the obvious meaning of basic words explained to you?
is being a disastrous burden on someone a crime? is forcing your own mother into prostitution a crime?
even if it is not criminal, it is still very detrimental to the point that the child would probably wish it were never born.
Then link the study not your fricking post moron kek. And show me where I said they were out of context? I said they are from 1972 and it's only 3 sentences so there's not much to see besides "uh embryo is kid" no studies or nothing else. Post a more modern study in full, not a tidbit from an entire book
I gave you a link with references and quotes to a dozen different embryology and cloning textbooks explaining why it is a scientific fact that life begins at fertilization.
you've been making excuses not to read or acknowledge scientists explaining why you;re wrong.
here it is again, homosexual
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
for you to keep running from
you're repeating the excuse "those textbooks are old", but as I said before
are you claiming that new scientific evidence has been discovered making these textbooks on cloning and embryology wrong such that it is in fact not true that the zygote is a living human organism?
Go ahead and prove it then. show the evidence.
Obviously you won't be able to because it's factually true that human life begins at fertilization.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
keep running and making excuses not to acknowledge the scientific facts showing that you're wrong and that life begins at fertilization.
...Can you not read?
Here's what I'm saying, to make it easier for your tiny brain to comprehend:
I'm saying right-wingers are ignorant in the sense that they INCORRECTLY think their definitions of "life" mean something to other people. Whether a cell or fetus constitutes "life" means nothing to me.
A bullet will mean something no matter if you try to deny it or not
>"nope, I'm not bleeding, nope, ain't happening, I decide what is true and what isn't" *faints
And that would be good riddance, you seem like the kind of kid who nobody wanted to play with because you invent rules on a whims and refuse to abide to the concept of fairness. Like a typical leftoid.
>A bullet will mean something no matter if you try to deny it or not
Irrelevant, the point is those who are pro-abortion don't care about your definition of "life", can you get that through your thick head?
It is not whether a fetus constitutes "life" that is the issue, so any argument you make based around that topic is a waste of time.
see
conservatives totally believe in science, which is why 85% of them still believe in young earth creationism. very scientific minds.
Sure anon, 85%, how about you put that number back in your ass alongside your boyfriend’s dick.
Also nice whataboutism.
so do you need to believe in a 6000 year old earth to be right wing? no.
so you're just confirming my point
>Tell me what scientific facts I deny in order to uphold my right wing values and support right wing figures and parties.
>you realise the answer is nothing, don;'t you homosexual? Because saying that you're left wing or right wing isn't making a factual claim, it's expressing something about your intentions thus what you want to do thus your priorities thus your morality.
Purity as a value, jesus christ you're awkward.
Rumsfeld and cheney, right af, but pure?
Don't be a tool all your life
how about you read the paper and you'll understand what purity encompasses.
Also no, that does not mean that literally every single right wing person thinks that way, this is stating what the trend is.
You understand what a trend is right? You realise two people do not refute a trend?
Watch him debate some homosexual quebec guy called xQc
he absolutely annihilates him and makes him literally seethe
xQc is even dumber than him, so it's a pretty low bar.
Well xQc is literally a gaming streamer, a 12 year old could own him in a debate, so that doesn't say a lot of good things about Tate.
>bragging about beating fricking xcq of all people in a debate
lmao
>libtard
>every not dumb and or a online streamer
So you confirm my point?
They're all libtards anon, even Tate. You just like the aesthetics of the libtard that says "LOL women amirite?" instead of the libtard that waves a Pride-flag.
Why do you choose to be like that?
>tate, his younger brother tristan and 2 other guys he has on his own podcast discuss height
>yh we know this one guy who's 5'7 and he slays and is an alpha, height doesn't matter and we never said you need to be tall to be alpha or anything
>you're 5'8, how the frick are you alpha is what he says on a different video
He's a gypsy scumbag who runs casinos and used to run camprostitute girls and now larps as some big alpha tough guy. He tricks naive young men into giving him viewership because he's starved for attention, getting millions of pounds wasn't enough for this scumbag, he also wanted to be seen as this big alpha guy on the internet and now he has this scam where he has convinced hundreds of people to make channels on all forms of social media and spam his youtube clips so they can make some pocket change due to referral to tates "alpha course" he sells which is another scam. This specific thing is why he's blown up recently and his clips are everywhere. He's nothing but a phony con-man who needs to be humbled and so is his brother the double digit IQ grug. A pair of scumbag gypsies who got rich due to shady "businesses". If you idolize or think positively of this guy or his brother, you got some growing up to do.
>He's a gypsy scumbag who runs casinos and used to run camprostitute girls and now larps as some big alpha tough guy. He tricks naive young men into giving him viewership because he's starved for attention, getting millions of pounds wasn't enough for this scumbag, he also wanted to be seen as this big alpha guy on the internet and now he has this scam where he has convinced hundreds of people to make channels on all forms of social media and spam his youtube clips so they can make some pocket change due to referral to tates "alpha course" he sells which is another scam. This specific thing is why he's blown up recently and his clips are everywhere. He's nothing but a phony con-man who needs to be humbled and so is his brother the double digit IQ grug. A pair of scumbag gypsies who got rich due to shady "businesses". If you idolize or think positively of this guy or his brother, you got some growing up to do.
^This
Cream pies your daughter bucko
I'm sorry anon I can never be envious of someone with that level of bald so long as I have hair
hairgays btfo
I'm not watching this zoomer tiktok trash and it's pathetic that you have it instantly ready to post in retort.
>no one looks at Tate and goes "ah he's pushing a lambo, he's making 15 mil a year, all these beautiful women, but he's bald"
i do lmao baldgay
excluding everything up to, and including, "but "
value is indeed derived from looks even as a man 😛
>nobody cares about hair and that's why I talk about hair all the time
uggo should have got on fin
cope
the only redpills you need to know are here
never relax
women are crazy
israelites leech
anglos are crypto israelites
white is alright
bugs gonna bug
The only positive I will say about him is having his confidence while being a mutt whos face looks like it got flattened by a steamroller is kinda inspiring
This guy is legit so annoying makes me want to shoot my ears off
lmao are you 12 or something?
T.Rex sized wieneratoo blasting eardrums out for miles.
With frick farts and sarah get the rat no no milk in the cereal I hate fricking dogs tell Timmy he's got promoted I'm fired egg shit EGG SHIT EGG SHIT AND THE STOVE IS OFF JOHN GOD FRICKING DAMMIT.
And screaming.
2,000 decibel screaming.
LETS GO BRANDON
TWICE THE PRICE
HALF THE FOOD
MAKE AMERICA BRANDON AGAIN
BRING BACK SLAVERY
BIDEN 2024
The fact that he's even a thing is a symptom of a failed culture.
RIP western civilization. Thanks for all the great work you did, but all the aimless fatherless trannies and incels will take it from here.
It is karma really. The 90s were rife with feminist comedians mocking men, any man that self indulged was having a mid life crisis, any man who had some masculine interest had it because he was compensating. Just regurgitated Freudian homosexualry (much like the golems kvetching over Chomsky being mocked).
So now some guys had enough a decade or two later of the fallout from the unchecked egos of modern feminism and they lash out and what do they get? More mockery from the israeli puppet peanut gallery.
Why would anyone take you self emasculated homosexual seriously?
a lot of beta bugman cucks in this thread who can't handle the truthbombs that the top G drops
this "top G" has zero power to change society and only says what he says to get 20 year old guys to give him money. Why should I care that losers give other losers money?
What relevence does that have? do you get butthurt and start seething at every single person you meet because every single person you meet lacks the ability to change society?
lol fricking moron.
No, I just don't care about this loser at all, but you think everyone is seething just because he exists and says something controversial on the internet.
>I don't care AT ALL, but I'm responding in this thread multiple times and am going to respond to this post too because I want to prove to everyone that I don;t care at ALLL
>you think everyone is seething just because he exists and says something controversial on the internet.
that's literally exactly why people are seething lol
Why is Tate interesting then? Literally everything I've heard him say are things people in the manosphere have said for the last 10 years. These people literally never come up with anything new, just a broken record of the same boring rants about how women are prostitutes or men are cucks. I guess it's interesting if you're 15 years old and have never heard it before.
ok so you admit that you actually do care about andrew tate. cool. enjoy watching someone you care about so much.
Mature response bro, exactly the kind of whiny and pathetic teenage shit I expect from someone who watches him. Grow up you sad loser.
He's a mulatto with a Black person dad
thats fine he stuck around
not really. he left his sons to play chess and lived out of his car and didn't provide for his family at all so his wife had to take his sons back to england to get benefits
his father was around enough to make his sons multi millionaires tbh
im canadian
and it's been a couple months since ive last gotten my dick sucked
>im canadian
so you're an extra gay american
yes now please sir, give me your ass
my balls are full to bursting and i need a hole, any hole will do
Maybe try fricking your mom like the rest of us
i love my mom dearly but this will no do. perhaps you have a dog i can borrow for a moment instead?
His dad was an international chess master who is fluent in multiple languages, including Russian. He's quite accomplished.
his dad is a black man not a homie. He was a chess master
If it's about IQ and not race, why don't we kick all the low IQ white men out of the country too?
Practicality. You can't instantly see someone's IQ like you can see their race. Race is just a useful predictor for IQ, its not the be all end all.
impressive. this guy is living proof the dangers of race mixing. even two high quality people will produce a stupid mutt golem
JFL at the low t betas in this thread. She's not gonna read your post you pathetic simp cucks
>JFL
What does this mean? I don't speak tiktok zoomer
Just fricking LOL you absolute newbie. You call me a zoomer while you don't even know a simple slang like this
Please for the love of God go back
>whoa is that a thing I hate? It must be insincere!
Leftists just cannot allow the existence of a conflicting viewpoint.
I don't know who the frick this chinless guy is, why is everyone so upset?
hes succesful because he's tall. thats literally it. if a 5'10 person was saying the same shit he would be laughed at off the internet. this dude is fricking 6'4
The gigachad (and chad) meme were the worst things to happen to this site. It welcomed all the ESL tourists in.
I'm ESL and I've been here for 15 years.
>It welcomed all the ESL tourists in.
Yes, unfortunately many speakers of "American English" (a mongrel dialect of the colonies) have infiltrated the board.
american website. you lost the war btw
> website dedicated to shitting on american movies
you lost a lot of men in pointless wars that never needed to be fought anyway.
Australia f.ex never had a war of independence or civil war etc.
and Australia still has a union jack on their flag. what a cucked little island
so?
if you prefer dying in a pointless war, that's your issue.
the last man lives the longest
neither the us or australia corresponds to the "last man"
I don't know man, he seems based
>its another episode of 4chongs hating anybody who even remotely helps other human beings get their life in order
Fricking crabs in a bucket, most of you.
None of the people who listen to him get their life in order bro, they just give him money and then they continue with the same shit they always did, which is why the number 1 reason he's famous is because he makes libs seethe and not because he's a brilliant philosopher of life.
He hosts and Orthodox chridtian podcast with two others, ngl its oretty good. Weird mix if soi, theology, obscure music and conspiracy stuff. Had never even heard of him before.
this dude is just stealing incel lingo and exposing it to normies
who
When they treat you like a clown always double down.
Sometimes I sit here and look at this board and wonder how this place became a neocon's candyland. We used to do secret santa threads where we'd anonymously buy each other shit. One of you dickheads bought me Trollhunter on DVD 12 years ago and I still have it. Now it's just 'trannies, cucks, incels, chuds and trannies again', ad infinitum. Gamergate and the youtube radicalization pipeline that followed really did a number on sad white boys.
>you changed
No we didn't, 10 years ago it was a joke to see a man dressed like a woman, you are fricking insane with no real memory and consuming leftoid rags from what I see, there is no Youtube pipeline, Youtube is absolutely full of homosexualry like the current year guy.
>we
Yeah right, zoomer.
I'm older than you dike.
Then you should feel even sadder about still being a reactionary.
Why the frick? Sad for not being a deranged leftist? You are the people afflicted by mental illness which is a direct result of your refusal to admit the reality that we live in.
You literally neat to be a self-hating mentally ill weirdo to be a democrat.
Weird, why do white democrats vote against their interests so much?
Why does this guy always have an army of people defending him on the internet?
sunk cost delusions
He runs an increasingly profitable MLM under his paid services schema under the guise of 'networking'. Basically convincing morons to pay for him to tell them working out is good, money is good, tell a friend instead of the therapy they clearly need.
Holy frick what a greedy israelite. Can't believe people are defending this mulatto.
I don't respect wiggers. Simple as, and no offence.
This fricker is way more worthwhile for zoomers than guys like xqc are i can tell you that much. So he's good in my book.
How's your Asda job going?
Depends what you mean by worthwhile. Both of them make a living on entertainment, the point isn't to change anyone's life.
Love Tate. Love how he sells very legitimate services to people. What a legend. Disclaimer: not a scammer
>pay me money to join my WAR ROOM with a roundtable of the smartest people on the planet that will teach you how to make money
Insane that anyone could ever hear some shit like this and not realize the scam.
>denouncing God to own the libs
Literally my jawline and I'm a incel
>How did he do it?
you just explained it
he took the joker pill
I don't get the hate or the hype. I haven't seen him say anything that the most middle of the road anti-feminist was saying back in 2012. In fact all his points seem to be taken from that kind of pre-trump era, very bland and tame compared to what followed.
I guess its more about his attitude, his ability to package these things in a way that triggers people and garners attention. Or maybe cause zoomers were not really active as much 10 years ago, so now its their turn to go through the same shit.
It's because he's a mutt. Black, wigger, and hispanic zoomer mutts feel like they can support this guy because he doesn't come with the baggage of being a white supremacist.
>How did he do it?
his dad's CIA contacts/slush and his fight-career's eastern european mob connections
So Tate made it despite being bald and chinless, what is your excuse to not making it Cinemaphile?
my father wasn't in the CIA
> I would never eat sushi infront of a woman
> 4chin :"omg he's so LE BASED"
Changing how you act or the things you like based on a woman is the ultimate beta behavior
How did we go from Zyzz to this?
Zyzz was a drug addicted degenerate and died early as a result of that. Tate won simply by surviving and watching all the other manosphere gays fall apart (Jordan Peterson, Dan Blizerian, etc)
post body