"Men's consent and LAW does NOT matter" Arizona female judge rules.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

Anonymous wrote:

Ranger One wrote:

I figured out why evil people do evil things: because no one gets revenge for unjust behavior.

While I agree with the principle, it is difficult in practice.
Let us say this guy kills the judge or a relative, that could be used as more feminist propaganda: toxic masculinity, gun control, etc. Making them a victim actually works to validate their positions.
The issue is how to do it properly to achieve your ends, not just have your revenge and leave everyone else worst.
Ideas?

Won’t be cries for gun control when someone uses gasoline and matches to get revenge. There is no point in playing to the brainwashed masses. You are playing for the elites; if they know their family will be soaked in gasoline and die screaming, they will have to rethink s~~~ting on everyone.

The opinion of sheep doesn’t matter. Let them play the victim. Who gives a f~~~? The elites should be so terrified that they should s~~~ themselves just THINKING about what will happen to the people they love, should just they propagate more injustice.

Our system is simply plutocracy by proxy… phony engineered consent to govern.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

Oswald Spengler was right about the West and “Democracy”.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[narwhalParticipant]

Branched off wrote:

The thing about this is that it only matters because of the stupid child maintenance laws.

Take away the child maintenance laws and of course it is logical that it is better an embryo gets a life than is discarded. If the man would only be allowed to cut all ties financially there would be no problem. But if that were to happen the cuck state would have a fit.

I disagree. The resulting child is still his child biologically, whether he has any financial responsibility or not. If the resulting embryo is not considered a living human entity (which given current abortion laws, it is not) than you cannot force him to be a father against his will. There are emotional implications involved with having a child that you did not chose to have, as well as the emotional implications of a child effectively born with a father who has effectively disowned him.

My sperm is my property, as is any embryo created with my sperm, until the point where I relinquish my rights to the sperm or embryo. We cannot live in a world where people can utilize others genetic material against their will. The idea that it’s legal to sperm jack a man, you just can’t make him financially responsible, is still very much appalling. I think there should be severe punishment for this, including significant jail time as a deterrent. Although it is not the same as rape, there are similarities in that a person is forced into parenthood without their consent or participation in activities that could result in parenthood.

There are other problems with this decision though. The decision effectively gave the ex-husband to also use the embryo without the mother. So he could opt to find a surrogate mother for the embryo. That surrogate mother could then opt to use a morning after pill. Yes, that would not be ‘for the purpose of birth’, but I can’t imagine that would override a woman’s right to abort. Once the embryo is placed in another woman, the other woman’s right override anything the genetic owners of the material may have agreed to.

I do get the point though, if you are ethically against abortion and believe life begins at conception, that this is a tremendous mess without any good solution. Discarding the embryos is no different than aborting, and therefore every attempt to make the child must be made. I would argue that the original contract between man and woman must be that an attempt to place an embryo in the woman will be made. In the event that the mother doesn’t not want to bear the child, or is physically incapable, a surrogate mother will be used. The cost of a surrogate will be a part of the original cost agreed up in the contract as an ‘insurance’ fee. I would argue that both parents are responsible for care of the resulting child, financially and physically. If one parent does not want responsibility and they other is willing to take full responsibility, then the agreement can be made.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

The resulting child is still his child biologically,

Which means nothing in the courts. They don’t give a f~~~ about men’s biology, just men’s money.

you cannot force him to be a father against his will.

But that’s exactly what the courts do, for a particular definition of father, that definition being a slave for a monthly check.

as well as the emotional implications of a child effectively born with a father who has effectively disowned him.

I turned out all right.

The problem for children growing up in a single parent household is not the lack of a father. You don’t miss what you never had. Their problem is being “raised” (if you can call it that) by a single mother.

And besides, how can a man disown what he was never allowed to own in the first place?

We cannot live in a world where people can utilize others genetic material against their will.

But we do.

The idea that it’s legal to sperm jack a man, you just can’t make him financially responsible, is still very much appalling.

But it is what it is.

If one parent does not want responsibility and they other is willing to take full responsibility, then the agreement can be made.

Agreements were already made, but as has been clearly demonstrated time and time again, any agreement that doesn’t allow the state to force its way into the man’s wallet will be nullified by the state.

There is no legal or political solution to this. Slaves can’t fix the plantation by negotiating with the massa. The only solution is for men, collectively and individually, to walk the f~~~ away from fertility clinics (and men are). If that means fertility compromised women lose their chance at motherhood, well that is not our problem. F~~~ them.

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

sidecar wrote:

Agreements were already made, but as has been clearly demonstrated time and time again, any agreement that doesn’t allow the state to force its way into the man’s wallet will be nullified by the state.

There is no legal or political solution to this. Slaves can’t fix the plantation by negotiating with the massa. The only solution is for men, collectively and individually, to walk the f~~~ away from fertility clinics (and men are). If that means fertility compromised women lose their chance at motherhood, well that is not our problem. F~~~ them.

This.

That’s a very interesting and relevant event for MGTOW, it shows two very relevant things:

First: Republicans changed the law to f~~~ the men and to better suit women’s needs.

Second: since in such case the law came too late, then a female judge decided that THE LAW DOESN’T MATTER.

Furthermore we know that Dems are even worse than Republicans.

There’s no way to positively negotiate with those who have such ideas and behavior.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

Don’t negotiate with Terrorists.

That’s all I can say.

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

iMickey503 wrote:

Don’t negotiate with Terrorists.
That’s all I can say.

With corrupt, gynocentric laws, you have to choose between obeying tyrants and live on your knees, or retaliate with force against injustice and end up dead or in prison.

MGTOW gives you a better third option: don’t engage with the system. Its better than living on your knees like a slave, or dying on your feet.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[narwhalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Which means nothing in the courts. They don’t give a f~~~ about men’s biology, just men’s money.

My comments were not about what currently happens in the courts. My comments were a reflection to how I think it should be, or what my personal principles are on the subject. In particular, Branched Off stated that there would be no issue if men were allowed to financially divorce themselves from their offsrping. I don’t want anyone using my genetic material without my consent, regardless of whether I have financial responsibility.

And you’re absolutely correct the courts don’t come close to matching my thoughts on the matter or anything that could be considered fair. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is abundantly clear that her first consideration is the gender, race, sexual orientation, wealth, and politic affiliation of the people in question.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

My comments were a reflection to how I think it should be,

Should be?

We don’t live in a world of should be.

Wish in one hand and sh​it in the other and see which fills up first.

We need to work out methods for dealing with the world as it is, not how it should be.

what my personal principles are on the subject

Your personal principles are irrelevant, especially since we are dealing with utterly unprincipled people.

if men were allowed to financially divorce themselves from their offsrping.

Men will never be permitted to financially divorce themselves from anything, because our society is utterly dependent on men’s finances.

So men need to simply stop giving a fu​ck about getting “permission”, take their finances off the table, and walk the fu​ck away.

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

iMickey503 wrote:

Don’t negotiate with Terrorists.
That’s all I can say.

That’s in my book:

“I do not negotiate with terrorists.”

It’s between that:

“Then he finally divorces. Then enter the fleshlight, it doesn’t withhold sex, and many men have f~~~ed enough women to realize that it actually feels better than intercourse using a condom…so he goes MGTOW and wants nothing to do with women.”

and that

“He’s left the plantation! Oh horror of horrors! Some poor woman is going to have to support herself because of this!”.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[narwhalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Should be?

We don’t live in a world of should be.

Again, you’re taking me out of context. Of course we don’t live in a world the way it should be. I’m not suggesting that the way it should be is going to happen any time soon if ever. In response to “it’s not a problem if men can financially abort”, I say it absolutely is still a problem. It will remain a problem until I have full control over my genetics.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

Of course we don’t live in a world the way it should be.

Then why do you persist in wasting everyone’s time talking about it? You might as well be talking about politics in McDonaldland or CWCville or any other fantasy world.

It will remain a problem until I have full control over my genetics.

In the current year the ONLY way for you to have full control over you genetics is a vasectomy. Deal with it.

And if that means women have to “suffer” for not having children, or, more often, a wallet to pay for their children, so be it.

And if that also means demographic, economic, and social collapse as you take your genes and productivity off the table and walk the fu​ck away, so be it.

[Author]

Posts