bebotalk

Over the past few weeks, I've had the following discourse with pretty women: - Shouted at a group of pretty women, as they purposely cut in line in front of me at McDonald's. they looked shocked, but I didn't care. it's the norm not to cut lines. Being born with a pretty face or nice body doesn't give one a right to circumvent social norms. If that bothers people, then not everybody comes from your shoddy environment or possesses similarly shoddy comprehension. - Told one in their face on a train not to touch me, as she and her friend were literally leaning into me on a train station platform. Mind your own space, one doesn't need to touch another. - Scolded another hottie, when she asked me for directions to the nearest supermarket whilst I was sitting in a city centre park, eating sandwiches. As she asked me when literally had a mouthful of food, and thus couldn't speak, but she got "irate" at me not responding immediately. Yes, the world revolves around you. You're so cognitively shot that you don't get that basic truth that it DOES NOT revolve around you, since you were raised in a shoddy and pushy environment, like most pretty women seemingly. Since women are hot are enemies, and act as such, I treat them as such. I think people are offended that I don't. I thought all actions were free? I guess that hypocrisy in on others. I believe people with some social grace would concur at the root with my points here. Attractive women, nay anybody, warrant the treatment I've "harshly dealt them" in these examples. I genuinely do hate them. and if people tell me I'm "wrong" to have bigotries, explain why you condone racists and sexists. without seeing the parallels, and claiming you're "wise and mentally astute"..... rather an honest person (me) over a hypocritical whiner who cannot control their own thoughts/perceptions.

Depends. if a person acknowledges the risks, they can harm themselves. i don't see the point here. It's just about personal freedom and not infringing on the freedoms of others. And no, IMHO people sholdn\'t harm others.

i stand pretty women are of a low moral and social quality. i see them as enemies. they plot, they're arrogant and thus they are enemies. it's simple.

that's their choice. though people should be free to make said decisions.

Does the OP have this antipathy towards people wanting to stop smoking or drinking. "all things in moderation" isn't just a cliche.

I reckon it's people who don't get modern approaches to gender and sexuality or don't want to accept them. yes, all scientific knowledge since 1950 is faked by the elites and lizardmen for nefarious ends. this includes treatments that work and alleviate conditions since the 1950s.

i reckon it's the Did you read some medical text for this, or it's just your own projected logic and "reason"?

I see the person who accused me of being Eliot Rodgers and claims "supreme social skills" didn't come back looool. what a dope!!!

They're entertainment. Just like movies, books, TV shows, etc. I'd argue why one needs to "educate" people in a given philosophy. People buying such don't need education.

if peolpe really wanted to help incels, they'd arrange mental health interventions. maybe they should have mandatory mental health counseillinf for all school kids. so even kids who aren' incels and get dates and sex can discuss issues confidentially.

Peopel can do what they want for a job. Provided it's not harming others and is a net positive to society. Providing sexual entertainment per se isn't a bad thing.

Minding one's own space is gay?? i guess this is some cultural difference. i don't know random women. in another avenues, that's a charge for a beatdown. and yes, women are weaker than men. but then these old school norms of men not hitting women are not as applicable these days, in given scenarios. it's not the 18th century. people are free to do as they please in public and not be bothered. moreover, if you're hostile to others, they will be hostile in return, especially if they don't know you.

I'd never say golf should be banned. Though it does disproportionally take up too much land, vis a vis other sports. It's not even a sport that many play, compared to football/soccer, basketball, etc. https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/07/17/golf-is-a-giant-board-game-damaging-the-planet-time-for-it-to-go Whilst people should be free to enjoy the sport, there isn't as much need for so many courses. it's land that can better be used to house people or grow crops. Considering there is a housing crisis in many countries, it shouldn't be the case that playing a sport that only a minority partake in should override a basic human need.

I don't agree. it's as straight as anything else.

even if it IS gay, and it's not IMHO, so what? Provided a person isn't harming others or fucking others without their consent, then all should be free and open in sexuality.

I'd push a woman who leaned on me. your social sense is pretty poor. nobody needs to lean on another. or you're projecting your bad motor skills and co-ordination onto others. why should some arrogant pretty women assume i want her attention? I'm in public doing my own thing and not bothering anybody else. i have shit to do. is that wrong? though your logical reasoning and situational reading appears poor. I contend that attractive women are scum. i don't care who that "offends". It's my opinion. people need to get over it.

Anti-natalists are a fringe group of mostly online edgelords. For many in the world, the ideal of having kids is ingrained. people often use religion to justify it. What will an anti-natalist do if they're confronted with "the Quran/Bible endorses my right to have kids!" Just respond by saying "religion is cringe!" yeah, that will do it. Yes, there is a need to conserve resources. But anti-natalists would have some severe pushback in that regard, or in terms of their ideology.

there are more valid uses of land than others. Humans interact and part of said interactions are trade. if malls are bad, then medieval or ancient marketplaces were. they're the same concept and practice. Vehicles of some sort hcve been used for millennia. No, I don't agree with your comparisons. People travel, so we need roads. people require goods and services, so we need malls. Paper has an event use and few believe its use is unethical. we even recycle paper and manage forests so they're not overused in the process. Not many environmentalists say that paper is wrong and it should be banned, and even if they do it's most likely a minority of said people. Even still, they are more effective uses of land compared to golf. Few people play golf, yet it disproportionately uses land compared to other sports or activities. Which sports took up land to the extent golf has? Medieval jousting was held on noble estates or urban areas. Roman gladiatorial events took place in urban arenas. Even then, the population 1000 or 2000 years ago was way less dense, and there were simply fewer people around. There were not 8 billion people alive in 1000 AD or the year 1 AD. In 2024 AD, with the same amount of land as previous era and with more people, we need to make better and wiser decisions of how we allocate and utilise said lands.

conspiracies are cringe. I just posted matter of facts.

ah, yes, ms. red stripe coming in to lecture what i say. but doesn't realise or possibly care that appears fake asf by talking about peace and lecturing stuff that doesn't meet her subjective spec of life. FUCK your subjective spec of life. Ad some mod who cannot read interactions will interactions properly or temper their impuses and thoughts will try and condemn me loooool.

spirituality is bs. does thst make me "bad? or it's just my opinion that many others share? there are different thoughts in life. seems it's only spiritual people who get fazed by that.

I know some might deem that offensive to state. I don't care. All people are different. some people have darker impulses or motives than others. We know that sociopaths and psychopaths exist, for instance, and that is often congenitally or biologically driven. To suggest bad conduct is driven by choices is false. it suggests people are blank slates and it's an overly optimistic and naive view of people. even in environments where negativity is encouraged, behaviour differs. Not all Nazis were alike. Some were extremely hateful towards Jews, and others weren't.

there are many who believe in objective morals. and yes, there may be good people. that's not the point.

i do't let strangers touch me. they could be a threat. or i probably didn't grow up in a shoddy environment. or my motor control is within the normal range. i dunno, really....

Malls sell good people need or otherwise value. Vehicles have been a mode of transportation for decades, hence highways. Roads have existed for far longer for the same basic purpose. I don't get that comparison. Your comparisons are weak. My basic point is that as land is a critical resource, then we need sound decisions on how to utilise it. I know what supply and demand is. Though supply and demand dynamics can be distorted. Markets aren't perfect. One cannot say that absolutely that just because there is a high presence of something that it means there is a high demand. It can be strongly argued that basic human needs should come before entertainment. and yes, entertainment is a need. but people need food or shelter before entertainment. Some needs are more pressing than others. Your points are confused. If the amount of golf courses were lessened, i don't see the issue. There still is enough demand for them, and all can win in that scenario.