houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

@37712 >if you leave it to libeal men and women then a better deal would be free money for women to have more kids and we all know how that works out.

I said give MEN a better deal, not women. Free money for women is not giving men a better deal. I figured that was clear enough, but if you want me to go as far as saying we should go back to full blown patriarchy, I agree. I figured that saying "men need to be given a better deal" is a great way to open the door to conversation.

So if you want to increase birth rates, give men a better deal. Men getting a better deal will mean men are more likely to accept the idea of marriage again, and you will have a good number more of children per couple.

Sure, some couples will still opt to have only 1 or 2 kids, but 1 or 2 is better than 0 when it comes to improving the overall numbers. And many married couples will want more than just 1 or 2 (if they get started early enough).

Why are there less pairings/marriages overall? It is because men see that prospect as a bad deal and want no part of a deal that could destroy them in numerous ways. It is a worse deal due to the government giving women an easy way out to destroy the marriage for as little as "I don't feel like it," as well as the women themselves choosing to forego the best years they should be giving their husband and instead expecting their future husband to wait until she is in her 30s.

One factor with falling birth rates I see is not that married couples are necessarily having too few children (though family sizes overall are down), it is the lack of marriages/pairing overall going on that is at the head of the issue. Too many people not forming long term relationships means that there are going to be overall less children as a result.

I am aware of single mothers and all that, but that's a symptom of another issue as well (and certainly not making up for lack of births).

@sickburnbro I recall that GDP of any particular product is only calculated at it's end phase, which means that resources extracted from rural parts of America would not be counted while the end products made in the more urban areas would be considered where that GDP would be counted.

Did I get that correct?

@DW2 @luithe Going from 1.1 to 1.3 is nothing to celebrate. Men need to be given a better deal in order for there to be a meaningful change in the birth rates. That usually means taking away many feminist privileges that are enforced by the government. And given how Japan is currently under the thumb of the US (see: drag queen/lgbt shit being pushed), that is not likely to change soon. Though there is a chance if the US collapses.

@sickburnbro Many people coming from these countries do have a distaste for their own governments and understand that they are corrupt. The lolberts will say, "See? These people are right in line with us!"

Except that the people from those countries are far more likely to just endorse a "better" government in countries like the US and vote for more government to get more out of the system. So they end up making the country less free as a result.

So I have come to despise many "libertarians."

@sickburnbro Too many libertarians are foolish enough to think that promoting open borders with the same fervor that they promote cutting all government spending does not have any inherent contradictions. They can't even get the existing population to get on board with making their policies a reality, so they have to be extra stupid to think that people from 3rd world countries who have no concept of libertarianism are going to embrace smaller government.

@Aether In the actual story, Cinderella's feet were smaller than her step sisters, as the step sisters resorted to trying to jam their feet in the shoe (one even cutting part of her foot). So it would be exactly the opposite of what these troons are saying. Because the foot fitting problem was not because the step sisters had dainty feet.

@Pain66 All that "real progress" would be entirely unnecessary if not for the majority of women voting in favor of feminism, abortion, and against traditional values. I am quite willing to bet these "conservative" women would be unwilling to give up their right to vote if it meant getting everything they claim to want.

Not saying it is about asking them to give up such rights, but rather that they very likely value "their right to vote" over getting the things they claim to want.

@Griffith @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @monsterislandcolonizer @Remi @Shlomo @UnityOstara Yes. If you just proclaim "Women don't have agency" and refuse to hold them accountable, then the women will act as if they do not have agency. So it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

If there is enough enforcement of consequences for bad behavior, then less women will behave badly. Unfortunately, many women conclude that they can avoid consequences. They are somewhat correct about that.

@IAMAL_PHARIUS >we're intimidating

Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night. Which is probably difficult for you with that sleep apnea that you most certainly have.

@shortstories just letting you know, the 1st and 2nd are exactly the same. I think you meant one of them to be a white man and a black woman?

@ceo_of_monoeye_dating many of the younger women are in some form of relationship with an older man as well. While to some extent that has always happened, it still prices out young men who have not built up the earning potential of the older generations.

And as for Social Security and Medicare, we can just gut the whole thing so that we have less panic about "more workers needed," and maybe younger generations can get ahead without the debts being pushed on them before they could even vote.

No, please. Anything but that! Just think about how much they will have to cut back on their false flag operations if this goes through!

@37712 @Mr_Mister If you are someone who is swayed by someone's debating skills rather than looking at the policies of the debater, you are the very type of person I do not want voting. That kind of person is vulnerable to emotional manipulation.

Debating skills also do not carry over to actually enacting good decisions. Though yes, it does not matter anyways because it is not as if elections are legitimate anyways (for how long that has been the case I cannot say for sure).