THIS IS A WAR.

[Anonymous 11]

Hitman wrote:

dig your intro..
now fly your own avatar..
hint, this is the last man’s ship to sail on..
glad to have you on board!

Thanks for all the welcomes everyone. Hitman, I designed the B.C.F.C. seal (my avatar), cheers.

[Anonymous 11]

TattooDave wrote:

OK ok …….

You’ll gaff your own real tuna soon. I promise. They strike when you least expect it.

[Anonymous 42]

Anonymous wrote:

I designed the B.C.F.C. seal (my avatar), cheers.

Fails to mention who photographed the map and shrunk it for the borderline, plus paid half for the stickers. He did the seal but we both agreed it should be round and he had the program to do it, I did the throbbing and twisting seals for the town.

[KimmurielParticipant 480]

Russky wrote:

people indoctrinated into liberation theology from cradle see everything as either a oppressor or a victim. That’s why it’s such a fertile ground for feminism, BLM, socialism and other Marxism-based ideas.

Its this kinda bulls~~~ that my black brothers and Lincoln were fighting against for the longest until we got duped into voting for the same party/ideology that enslaved us.

I tell my cream-colored brothers often that “if someone is trying to make you feel guilty about that something that you didn’t do or would never do, someone is trying to make a slave outta you.”

"You meet a few exceedingly forsaken, Sit around the cooler refusing domestication" Aesop Rock

[narwhalParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, men should be free from all women as I don’t believe in marital contracts. In regards as to what comes from their bodies, I feel a man should only be held responsible if he entered into a contract stating the intent of intercourse was to create a child.

I would modify this slightly. Every adult should the ability to sign a legal document, specifying their intentions regarding procreation.

A man would have the following options:
A – DEFAULT If procreation happens, I will not claim father rights (includes visitation and financial responsibility)
B – If procreation happens, I will claim father rights (includes visitation and financial responsibility)
C – I am medically sterile

A woman would have the following options:
A – DEFAULT If procreation happens, I will give birth but will not claim mother rights (includes visitation and financial responsibility)
B – If procreation happens, I will have an abortion.
C – If procreation happens, I will claim mother rights (includes visitation and financial responsibility).
D – I am medically sterile.

Everyone has the right to state their intentions in advance of procreation. If they do not state their intentions, default position applies. If a person wishes to change their position on procreation after procreation occurs, they can do so with the consent of the other parent.

So here’s how it works between different pairings:
Man A – Woman A – child is placed for adoption
Man A – Woman B – Abortion
Man A – Woman C – Mother gets full custody of child
Man A – Woman D – No child possible
Man B – Woman A – Father gets full custody of child
Man B – Woman B – Abortion
Man B – Woman C – Mother and Father share custody.
Man B – Woman D – No child possible
Man C – Woman A – No child possible
Man C – Woman B – No child possible
Man C – Woman C – No child possible
Man C – Woman D – No child possible

So both men and women have full control over what happens with their children based on their choice and who they choose to sleep with. If you don’t like the outcome, then don’t sleep with him/her.

I think this also has the added side effect of getting people to seriously consider the consequences of procreation and who they are having sex with before it takes place. If you are against abortion, you can actively avoid women who would abort your child. Women may have to reconsider the consequences of select abortion, as it could very well reduce the pool of men willing to have sex with them. Then again, maybe not.

Note: Medically sterile could be vasectomy/tubes tied or certified birth control, so type of birth control may need to have an expiration date. As well, you probably need to specify rights if birth control fails.

Note2: Perhaps in order to claim mother/father rights, you must also prove the capacity to be financial responsibility. For example, a woman on welfare could not claim mother rights, she would have to chose BC, abortion, or adoption. The one exception would be if a father with father rights granted mother rights to her voluntarily.

Note3: If adoption is the outcome, persons related to the parents would have first right of adoption with parental consent. So if a daughter has a child with no mother rights, grandma can be financially responsible for the child.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 11]

Anonymous wrote:

gem10 wrote:

I designed the B.C.F.C. seal (my avatar), cheers.

Fails to mention who photographed the map and shrunk it for the borderline, plus paid half for the stickers. He did the seal but we both agreed it should be round and he had the program to do it, I did the throbbing and twisting seals for the town.

My brother from the same mother, I haven’t seen those seals for about 15 years, back when we had four websites running. The good ol’ days.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

I have a major problem with this

narwhal wrote:

Man B – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead she should get compensated for carrying it to term and father get full custody.

and possibly this:

narwhal wrote:

Man A – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead it should be placed for adoption.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[VarunParticipant 2981]

@gem10 I think actually men are not responsible for anything that comes out of a women’s body.

They cannot make us pay alimony for period blood, right?

The argument here is that: “Its still a part of you. So you have to pay. Doesn’t matter if you don’t want it. You have to pay because it is YOURS.”

I look at it this way. Suppose a woman accidently swallows your finger. She then asks you to pay for surgery to get the finger out.

But you refuse. “I didn’t ask you to swallow my finger.”

She says, “Its yours. Don’t you want it back?”.

You: “No.”

She: “Then give me the right to throw it away after I get it out. You’d have no rights to it, but in the event I’d want to make a necklace out of it, you gotta pay.”

In the event she does get the finger out, she claims all right to the finger. But it’s still YOUR finger. DNA tests will prove it is yours.

I think the best possible solution is to allow a provision for fathers to sign off parental rights and thus relieve himself of forced child support.. and allow her to ‘throw away your finger’ if she can’t keep it.

But of course, it’s YOUR finger, right? You HAVE to pay for it, even after you disown it. Bulls~~~.

Welcome to mgtow.com.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Anonymous 42]

Here’s the original outline I made seen in the center of the seal:

And here’s the only flag to fly under this condemned institution of government:

I fabricated and erected the 36 foot flag pole back when we were trying to revive the place unaware of it’s jaded and dark history, before the 1997 CEASE AND DESIST followed by the coup d’etat that took over the place to do things their own way and operate in contempt of court order to attain a license to legally operate under Massachusetts law. It’s now a rogue state where anything goes, the law was tossed out the window…

[narwhalParticipant]

Russky wrote:

I have a major problem with this

narwhal wrote:

Man B – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead she should get compensated for carrying it to term and father get full custody.

and possibly this:

narwhal wrote:

Man A – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead it should be placed for adoption.

I do too. Which is why I would then exercise my right to never sleep with a woman who’s selected abortion.

I don’t foresee that we’ll ever have a real vote on abortion, it’s always going to be controlled by the supreme court. This may actually be better then a vote.

You could also legislate that anyone who has had an abortion be registered…like a sex offender. That way, you have the opportunity to know who you’re dealing with. Of course, that might be construed as putting the life of the aborted at risk from vigilantes.

The woman I married had a kid out of wedlock. That was actually one of the reasons why I married her. I saw that she had the opportunity to have an abortion and chose to take care of the child. She knew what I thought and felt about that.

A couple years after we were married, I found out that she had had an abortion in another circumstance before that. She did not want to tell me because she was afraid of how I would react. All those times the abortion issue came up, she came up and let me believe otherwise. I pretty much had no choice but to just let it go and move on, once I was told.

You could argue that it was none of my business, but can you imagine if I had withheld something from my past as equally important and/or morally controversial?

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 42]

Russky wrote:

I have a major problem with this

narwhal wrote:

Man B – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead she should get compensated for carrying it to term and father get full custody.

and possibly this:

narwhal wrote:

Man A – Woman B – Abortion

– maybe instead it should be placed for adoption.

Hey russky, you’re missing the point, her body, her choice, men and society should not be held responsible for “her choice”, her problem, she spread her legs and let the seed blow in. No?

Automatic no responsibility to be placed on men directly or indirectly, we’re just dick-seed blowing in the wind.

Treat our legal status when unmarried the same way you would treat pollen from a tree. We have the same say as pollen from a tree, so why not treat it as pollen?

It makes perfect balance to the injustice of forced fatherhood that hinges entirely on a woman’s choice!

It’s not our “choice” so why should we be held accountable to a woman’s decision, isn’t that in itself a form of slavery?

To “force” your “choice” on others? Is that not Slavery?

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

narwhal wrote:

I do too. Which is why I would then exercise my right to never sleep with a woman who’s selected abortion.

I don’t foresee that we’ll ever have a real vote on abortion, it’s always going to be controlled by the supreme court. This may actually be better then a vote.

You could also legislate that anyone who has had an abortion be registered…like a sex offender. That way, you have the opportunity to know who you’re dealing with. Of course, that might be construed as putting the life of the aborted at risk from vigilantes.

The woman I married had a kid out of wedlock. That was actually one of the reasons why I married her. I saw that she had the opportunity to have an abortion and chose to take care of the child. She knew what I thought and felt about that.

A couple years after we were married, I found out that she had had an abortion in another circumstance before that. She did not want to tell me because she was afraid of how I would react. All those times the abortion issue came up, she came up and let me believe otherwise. I pretty much had no choice but to just let it go and move on, once I was told.

You could argue that it was none of my business, but can you imagine if I had withheld something from my past as equally important and/or morally controversial?

my mom told me she had one abortion before having me because it wasn’t that time yet.
she’s been holding that secret for 40 years and decided to tell me out of the blue because it was f~~~ing with her head and she had to come clean because she was sorry all this time and would never done it if she had another chance. She also said it was my dad’s. It sucks knowing I could have had an older sibling but it never had a chance. Sometimes I could feel its spiritual presence

2Tower – I know what you mean. But I don’t believe it’s her body her choice. She might as well kill a newborn and have the same excuse. Would that be moral and justified? Especially if you wanted to be that child’s parent? It came from her body, so it’s her choice, right?

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Anonymous 42]

Russky wrote:

But I don’t believe it’s her body her choice.

^^^AGREED, but that’s not the argument, the argument is to be a nemesis in fairly balancing the law by it’s own PERVERTED standards, molesting the law 180 to serve to better balance the imbalance of perverted justice.

A what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (if you will). It would stop women from being so careless with their bodies in the first place, it would annihilate the welfare system and put the burden back on the decision maker being the woman with her body, her choice.

It would f~~~ing annihilate paternity fraud!

No safety nets, put all the responsibility on the decision maker as it should be.

My decision is your burden is f~~~ing bulls~~~!

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

yeah, yeah, I understand. But it will never happen. Double standards have been established as a legal precedent long time ago, so now it’s a standard operating procedure.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Welcome Gem10.

Enjoyed your post.

And you are right- we are in a war. We fight by simply walking away from the crazy chicks and enjoying life.
I’m happy to let the snowflakes march in the streets and protest against whatever is stylish that week.
Let them rob and plunder their manginas.
We simply ignore them and enjoy life.

[Anonymous 11]

Russky wrote:

yeah, yeah, I understand. But it will never happen. Double standards have been established as a legal precedent long time ago, so now it’s a standard operating procedure.

Hi Russky, so would you be for this, against it, neutral, or other?

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Anonymous wrote:

Russky wrote:

yeah, yeah, I understand. But it will never happen. Double standards have been established as a legal precedent long time ago, so now it’s a standard operating procedure.

Hi Russky, so would you be for this, against it, neutral, or other?

For. Anything is better than the current status quo

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Anonymous 11]

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

Welcome Gem10.

Enjoyed your post.

And you are right- we are in a war. We fight by simply walking away from the crazy chicks and enjoying life.
I’m happy to let the snowflakes march in the streets and protest against whatever is stylish that week.
Let them rob and plunder their manginas.
We simply ignore them and enjoy life.

Thanks. Yes we fight by simply walking away, but the battle doesn’t end there, and the war rages on. Even if someone has never been married, women can still make your life a living hell. You see they have decided to take as much control over the government as possible. So really the government is a bigger problem, along with the tyrants that own the governments, these jackals turn anyone against anyone they can, and they fund both sides, including all major wars, putting both sides in debt to them. These guys would turn Goofy against Mickey Mouse if it meant more money and power. These people are the worst problem in the world.

[Anonymous 24]

Anonymous wrote:

@joe Bauers, Actually your first comment was pretty clear, I guess I skimmed past the pertinent part the first time I read it, cheers.

No worries man. Glad to have you here.

[Anonymous 24]

Kimmuriel wrote:

Russky wrote:

people indoctrinated into liberation theology from cradle see everything as either a oppressor or a victim. That’s why it’s such a fertile ground for feminism, BLM, socialism and other Marxism-based ideas.

Its this kinda bulls~~~ that my black brothers and Lincoln were fighting against for the longest until we got duped into voting for the same party/ideology that enslaved us.

I tell my cream-colored brothers often that “if someone is trying to make you feel guilty about that something that you didn’t do or would never do, someone is trying to make a slave outta you.”

You wouldn’t believe how many Democrats I have met that even know that they were the party of the Confederate States. It is the perfect example of why Democracy is s~~~. It allows the majority to oppress the minority. Well, in this case the oppressed did not get to vote, but still, the concept remains the same.

[Author]

Posts