What are your Taboo Opinions that you get to express on HappierAbroad but rarely elsewhere?

[Cornfed]

If you are going to shape your views based on your whiny emotions then you might as well start wearing a dress right now.

[MrMan]

Don't elect this man president and give him the nuclear football.

Elect me president, and I promise that my first act will be to nuke Silicon Valley. After that I will give everyone an opportunity to repent from modern culture and join some alternative. Those who don't will be exterminated. So do I have your support?

I'll wait for God to bring judgment. If Silicon Valley were nuked, it would probably wipe out a lot of our online platforms and render some of the other technologies we use unusable, and also slow the technological development of mankind for a while. But it might shift the balance of power on some cultural issues. Google and Facebook might not influence how people think anymore. Then we might be at the mercy of TikTok.

[fschmidt]

I'll wait for God to bring judgment. If Silicon Valley were nuked, it would probably wipe out a lot of our online platforms and render some of the other technologies we use unusable, and also slow the technological development of mankind for a while. But it might shift the balance of power on some cultural issues. Google and Facebook might not influence how people think anymore. Then we might be at the mercy of TikTok.

My primary reason for wanting to nuke Silicon Valley isn't even cultural, it is to save technology from incredibly crappy technology that Silicon Valley is producing. As a programmer, I know full depths of the depravity of Silicon Valley code. So I promise, if elected president, to personally rewrite any critical software that may be lost by my nuking Silicon Valley. Now will you vote for me?

Anyone interested in the technical side of this can see my site: http://www.reactionary.software/

[Outcast9428]

@fschmidt

Are you married? If you are married, how do you think your wife would feel if you said "I think its okay for married men to cheat on their wives?" How can you say you love her if you want to preserve your right to run off to a hooker anytime things aren't the best at home?

@Cornfed Have you ever loved a girl? I don't know anything about your personal life. If you did, I don't think you would feel the same way about this topic.

@MarcosZeitola

Traditionalists never said it was okay for men to just do whatever the hell they want and only women are expected to be chaste. It sounds like some of y'all are reading the feminist account of what traditional conservatism from the past was like and saying "hey that sounds pretty nice" and imitating that instead of the actual traditional values. I've grown up around actual traditionalists, including my own father, and nobody thinks adultery is okay whether its with a prostitute or with a normal girl.

Believing in different roles or behaviors for men and women is not the same at all as saying that completely different moral rules apply to them. That basically, crimes don't carry the same weight when a certain group is committing them or when they are inflicted on a certain group. That's not traditional, that's just its own brand of degeneracy.

Traditionalism is basically a combination of moralism and biological determinism. But right-leaning liberals seem to think just because they believe in the biological determinism part of traditionalism, that that makes them traditional. It doesn't. I would rather someone be pure conservative moralism then believe in the biological determinism but not the moralism. Mainstream conservatives are closer to being traditionalists then a man who wants to get rid of women's ability to vote but also believes its okay for men to cheat on their wives.

And you guys really believe a woman is not eventually going to figure out that her man cheated on her? This shit always comes out eventually.

Comparing women to pets is a perfect analogy. I also don't believe dogs should be in the workforce and I do believe they should be loyal, sweet, and cute. But the whole point of having a pet is to cherish, love, and spoil your pet. Anyone who doesn't do this, is considered a bad pet owner. Possibly an abusive one. Pets exist to be loved and to love you for loving them. My pets stay inside the house, they have high quality food, comfortable beds, they sleep on the couch and on the bed, they have sweaters for the winter time, a beautiful backyard to play in, and toys all over the place. The same thing applies to a wife. The whole point of having a wife is to love, cherish, and spoil her. If a man isn't doing that then what the f**k is he doing with a wife? He just wants a fuckable piece of furniture in the house? God put women on this Earth to love us and for us to love them. Traditionalism is about creating a world for men like that, its about creating a world where you get an adorable, sweet female companion to love and cherish... And who will love you for loving her.

Its funny how people like CaptainSkelebob and Cornfed want to pretend that traditionalism was really harsh, unemotional and cold. Watch any Shakespeare play, however, and you realize that people in the past were so sappy and emotional that people today would be calling them faggots. People in Renaissance Europe make Latin America look reserved by comparison. Romeo killed himself because he lost a woman he married three days ago. You think that's the type of man who'd justify going to brothels and leaving his poor Juliet at home alone? You think he would have any desire to do that in the first place? Virtually every Shakespeare play I saw, the men were pronouncing their ever-lasting love for the female characters, telling her she's the most beautiful girl in the entire world. That no girl would ever matter to him like she did, that she was all he needed in life to be happy. That his life would be meaningless without her.

Are these exaggerated portrayals? Maybe in some cases... But it absolutely does tell us a lot about how a lot of people thought back then. People in the pre-feminist world were not the violent, woman hating misogynists that feminists portray them as. Did those kind of men exist back then, I'm sure they did. But most weren't like that. They viewed women the same way that I do. And parents absolutely did expect that a potential suitor for their daughter treat her like that.

Cornfed says I'm implicitly leftist, yet I have an extremely conservative genetic code. All the men in my family who I am related to by blood are conservative. That includes all the young men too. What are the odds that of 15 different men, every single one of them would turn out to be a family oriented Christian conservative? All of us vote Republican and none of hookup with random girls. All of us are either married or trying to be. I don't have a single playboy type guy in my family. The men in my family do not cheat on their wives either. None of them are divorced. My family is full of happy marriages where no one cheated on each other, abused each other, or divorced each other. The kind of marriages that liberals, leftists, and blackpilled conservatives act like doesn't exist anymore. Conservatism is so wired into our genes, the men in my family couldn't be liberals if we wanted to. I have experience at strip clubs, and I found that every time, I just wanted the same dancer over and over again. Once I had my favorite dancer, I had no interest in the others anymore.

[MarcosZeitola]

@MarcosZeitola

Traditionalists never said it was okay for men to just do whatever the hell they want and only women are expected to be chaste. It sounds like some of y'all are reading the feminist account of what traditional conservatism from the past was like and saying "hey that sounds pretty nice" and imitating that instead of the actual traditional values. I've grown up around actual traditionalists, including my own father, and nobody thinks adultery is okay whether its with a prostitute or with a normal girl.

Believing in different roles or behaviors for men and women is not the same at all as saying that completely different moral rules apply to them. That basically, crimes don't carry the same weight when a certain group is committing them or when they are inflicted on a certain group. That's not traditional, that's just its own brand of degeneracy.

Traditionalism is basically a combination of moralism and biological determinism. But right-leaning liberals seem to think just because they believe in the biological determinism part of traditionalism, that that makes them traditional. It doesn't. I would rather someone be pure conservative moralism then believe in the biological determinism but not the moralism. Mainstream conservatives are closer to being traditionalists then a man who wants to get rid of women's ability to vote but also believes its okay for men to cheat on their wives.

And you guys really believe a woman is not eventually going to figure out that her man cheated on her? This shit always comes out eventually.

Comparing women to pets is a perfect analogy. I also don't believe dogs should be in the workforce and I do believe they should be loyal, sweet, and cute. But the whole point of having a pet is to cherish, love, and spoil your pet. Anyone who doesn't do this, is considered a bad pet owner. Possibly an abusive one. Pets exist to be loved and to love you for loving them. My pets stay inside the house, they have high quality food, comfortable beds, they sleep on the couch and on the bed, they have sweaters for the winter time, a beautiful backyard to play in, and toys all over the place. The same thing applies to a wife. The whole point of having a wife is to love, cherish, and spoil her. If a man isn't doing that then what the f**k is he doing with a wife? He just wants a fuckable piece of furniture in the house? God put women on this Earth to love us and for us to love them. Traditionalism is about creating a world for men like that, its about creating a world where you get an adorable, sweet female companion to love and cherish... And who will love you for loving her.

Its funny how people like CaptainSkelebob and Cornfed want to pretend that traditionalism was really harsh, unemotional and cold. Watch any Shakespeare play, however, and you realize that people in the past were so sappy and emotional that people today would be calling them faggots. People in Renaissance Europe make Latin America look reserved by comparison. Romeo killed himself because he lost a woman he married three days ago. You think that's the type of man who'd justify going to brothels and leaving his poor Juliet at home alone? You think he would have any desire to do that in the first place? Virtually every Shakespeare play I saw, the men were pronouncing their ever-lasting love for the female characters, telling her she's the most beautiful girl in the entire world. That no girl would ever matter to him like she did, that she was all he needed in life to be happy. That his life would be meaningless without her.

Are these exaggerated portrayals? Maybe in some cases... But it absolutely does tell us a lot about how a lot of people thought back then. People in the pre-feminist world were not the violent, woman hating misogynists that feminists portray them as. Did those kind of men exist back then, I'm sure they did. But most weren't like that. They viewed women the same way that I do. And parents absolutely did expect that a potential suitor for their daughter treat her like that.

Cornfed says I'm implicitly leftist, yet I have an extremely conservative genetic code. All the men in my family who I am related to by blood are conservative. That includes all the young men too. What are the odds that of 15 different men, every single one of them would turn out to be a family oriented Christian conservative? All of us vote Republican and none of hookup with random girls. All of us are either married or trying to be. I don't have a single playboy type guy in my family. The men in my family do not cheat on their wives either. None of them are divorced. My family is full of happy marriages where no one cheated on each other, abused each other, or divorced each other. The kind of marriages that liberals, leftists, and blackpilled conservatives act like doesn't exist anymore. Conservatism is so wired into our genes, the men in my family couldn't be liberals if we wanted to. I have experience at strip clubs, and I found that every time, I just wanted the same dancer over and over again. Once I had my favorite dancer, I had no interest in the others anymore.

I think that when you say the demand for chastity is exactly the same for men and women, it sort of rubs certain men the wrong way. For the record, @fschmidt IS married, in fact he's probably the most respectable veteran traditionalist poster on this forum, he's an older male, has been married to a Mexican woman for decades and has two grown children. So he's not just some random dude talking out his ass.

As for me, personally, I fully agree that the ideal scenario is for a man and woman to always be faithful to one another as much as humanly possible. At the same time, there are men who simply aren't having their sexual needs met by their wives. This is a sad fact of life, "dead bedrooms" occur in too many marriages, and sex all too often becomes this painful affair that occurs once a week or so... I know one older Asian man in his fifties whose wife had a hysterectomy; after this point, she could no longer get wet and never really got aroused anymore. Sex became extremely physically painful for her. What was this man supposed to do, my friend, was he supposed to just, stay sexless for the rest of his life? He could live another twenty or thirty years never getting any action. Instead, he got a discreet mistress. Sometimes when abroad he visits prostitutes. I don't feel comfortable judging this man. He's a good man in a shitty situation.

There are quite a lot of good men out there who find themselves in shitty situations. Women change. Wives and girlfriends sometimes seem like entirely different species altogether. I feel an enormously strong, passionate attachment to my current wife-to-be. Love her to bits, she's gorgeous, she's physically perfect. But I have no way whatsoever of knowing this will remain. That her passion will not change. That life circumstances will not change her. Of course I'll do my best to do the right thing. And since she is a lot younger than me, chances are by the time she gets a little older and less into things, my own libido might have gone down somewhat. Who knows? All I know is, I am uncomfortable demonizing men who are in desperate need of a sexual release, fail to get it from their wives, and are more or less forced to seek this release elsewhere.

And no, I don't believe this believe makes me a liberal, or a fake conservative or any of those things. I am looking at this situation from a strictly neutral perspective, from a position of empathy, firmly rooted in realism. There is the way we want things to be, the way we pray for things to be, and then there's reality as we find it. The two aren't always the same, sadly. I'm not advocating for husbands to be unfaithful... but there are husbands who are dealt a rough hand by life, by changing hormones, by aging and busy wives, by unforseen medical situations. It may be preferable for a man caught in such a predicament to discreetly see another woman, or women, as opposed to divorcing his wife and marrying someone else, breaking up a perfectly good marriage that works in all ways but one. Food for thought, I hope. I'm not trying to attack you or your worldview, @Outcast9428 but I am trying to make you see this thing in a new light you might not have considered as much as you should have, or could have.

[Outcast9428]

@MarcosZeitola

Traditionalists never said it was okay for men to just do whatever the hell they want and only women are expected to be chaste. It sounds like some of y'all are reading the feminist account of what traditional conservatism from the past was like and saying "hey that sounds pretty nice" and imitating that instead of the actual traditional values. I've grown up around actual traditionalists, including my own father, and nobody thinks adultery is okay whether its with a prostitute or with a normal girl.

Believing in different roles or behaviors for men and women is not the same at all as saying that completely different moral rules apply to them. That basically, crimes don't carry the same weight when a certain group is committing them or when they are inflicted on a certain group. That's not traditional, that's just its own brand of degeneracy.

Traditionalism is basically a combination of moralism and biological determinism. But right-leaning liberals seem to think just because they believe in the biological determinism part of traditionalism, that that makes them traditional. It doesn't. I would rather someone be pure conservative moralism then believe in the biological determinism but not the moralism. Mainstream conservatives are closer to being traditionalists then a man who wants to get rid of women's ability to vote but also believes its okay for men to cheat on their wives.

And you guys really believe a woman is not eventually going to figure out that her man cheated on her? This shit always comes out eventually.

Comparing women to pets is a perfect analogy. I also don't believe dogs should be in the workforce and I do believe they should be loyal, sweet, and cute. But the whole point of having a pet is to cherish, love, and spoil your pet. Anyone who doesn't do this, is considered a bad pet owner. Possibly an abusive one. Pets exist to be loved and to love you for loving them. My pets stay inside the house, they have high quality food, comfortable beds, they sleep on the couch and on the bed, they have sweaters for the winter time, a beautiful backyard to play in, and toys all over the place. The same thing applies to a wife. The whole point of having a wife is to love, cherish, and spoil her. If a man isn't doing that then what the f**k is he doing with a wife? He just wants a fuckable piece of furniture in the house? God put women on this Earth to love us and for us to love them. Traditionalism is about creating a world for men like that, its about creating a world where you get an adorable, sweet female companion to love and cherish... And who will love you for loving her.

Its funny how people like CaptainSkelebob and Cornfed want to pretend that traditionalism was really harsh, unemotional and cold. Watch any Shakespeare play, however, and you realize that people in the past were so sappy and emotional that people today would be calling them faggots. People in Renaissance Europe make Latin America look reserved by comparison. Romeo killed himself because he lost a woman he married three days ago. You think that's the type of man who'd justify going to brothels and leaving his poor Juliet at home alone? You think he would have any desire to do that in the first place? Virtually every Shakespeare play I saw, the men were pronouncing their ever-lasting love for the female characters, telling her she's the most beautiful girl in the entire world. That no girl would ever matter to him like she did, that she was all he needed in life to be happy. That his life would be meaningless without her.

Are these exaggerated portrayals? Maybe in some cases... But it absolutely does tell us a lot about how a lot of people thought back then. People in the pre-feminist world were not the violent, woman hating misogynists that feminists portray them as. Did those kind of men exist back then, I'm sure they did. But most weren't like that. They viewed women the same way that I do. And parents absolutely did expect that a potential suitor for their daughter treat her like that.

Cornfed says I'm implicitly leftist, yet I have an extremely conservative genetic code. All the men in my family who I am related to by blood are conservative. That includes all the young men too. What are the odds that of 15 different men, every single one of them would turn out to be a family oriented Christian conservative? All of us vote Republican and none of hookup with random girls. All of us are either married or trying to be. I don't have a single playboy type guy in my family. The men in my family do not cheat on their wives either. None of them are divorced. My family is full of happy marriages where no one cheated on each other, abused each other, or divorced each other. The kind of marriages that liberals, leftists, and blackpilled conservatives act like doesn't exist anymore. Conservatism is so wired into our genes, the men in my family couldn't be liberals if we wanted to. I have experience at strip clubs, and I found that every time, I just wanted the same dancer over and over again. Once I had my favorite dancer, I had no interest in the others anymore.

I think that when you say the demand for chastity is exactly the same for men and women, it sort of rubs certain men the wrong way. For the record, @fschmidt IS married, in fact he's probably the most respectable veteran traditionalist poster on this forum, he's an older male, has been married to a Mexican woman for decades and has two grown children. So he's not just some random dude talking out his ass.

As for me, personally, I fully agree that the ideal scenario is for a man and woman to always be faithful to one another as much as humanly possible. At the same time, there are men who simply aren't having their sexual needs met by their wives. This is a sad fact of life, "dead bedrooms" occur in too many marriages, and sex all too often becomes this painful affair that occurs once a week or so... I know one older Asian man in his fifties whose wife had a hysterectomy; after this point, she could no longer get wet and never really got aroused anymore. Sex became extremely physically painful for her. What was this man supposed to do, my friend, was he supposed to just, stay sexless for the rest of his life? He could live another twenty or thirty years never getting any action. Instead, he got a discreet mistress. Sometimes when abroad he visits prostitutes. I don't feel comfortable judging this man. He's a good man in a shitty situation.

There are quite a lot of good men out there who find themselves in shitty situations. Women change. Wives and girlfriends sometimes seem like entirely different species altogether. I feel an enormously strong, passionate attachment to my current wife-to-be. Love her to bits, she's gorgeous, she's physically perfect. But I have no way whatsoever of knowing this will remain. That her passion will not change. That life circumstances will not change her. Of course I'll do my best to do the right thing. And since she is a lot younger than me, chances are by the time she gets a little older and less into things, my own libido might have gone down somewhat. Who knows? All I know is, I am uncomfortable demonizing men who are in desperate need of a sexual release, fail to get it from their wives, and are more or less forced to seek this release elsewhere.

And no, I don't believe this believe makes me a liberal, or a fake conservative or any of those things. I am looking at this situation from a strictly neutral perspective, from a position of empathy, firmly rooted in realism. There is the way we want things to be, the way we pray for things to be, and then there's reality as we find it. The two aren't always the same, sadly. I'm not advocating for husbands to be unfaithful... but there are husbands who are dealt a rough hand by life, by changing hormones, by aging and busy wives, by unforseen medical situations. It may be preferable for a man caught in such a predicament to discreetly see another woman, or women, as opposed to divorcing his wife and marrying someone else, breaking up a perfectly good marriage that works in all ways but one. Food for thought, I hope. I'm not trying to attack you or your worldview, @Outcast9428 but I am trying to make you see this thing in a new light you might not have considered as much as you should have, or could have.

I think the guy who’s wife cannot have sex because of the medical conditions gets a pass actually. I mean, neither of them are at fault for that at all.

95% of the time though, that’s not what this is going to look like. It’s not even going to be men who’s wives have turned into bitches. It is overwhelmingly just going to be men saying shit like “eh variety is the spice of life right? You can’t expect a man to just sleep with one woman for the rest of his life!”

If you point out these very specific exceptions then I might say “okay he gets a pass” but when I see people making blanket statements like “It’s not adultery if men do it.” Yeah that just reeks of hypocrisy. Those guys are being manipulative and twisting principles so they sound like they’re being traditional because they are saying different standards apply to men and women when they are really just being degenerates looking to create a loophole where they keep power in a relationship but aren’t required to make any of the sacrifices or accept any of the responsibilities. We should not accept the entire behavior in order to account for some rare exceptions because the vast majority of the time it’s not going to be men like the guy you described doing it, it’s going to be some asshole saying “life’s too short so do whatever you want man! Variety is the spice of life!”

That’s how human beings are. Whenever you give people freedom they abuse it and take advantage of it. It’s better to just handle the exceptions when they come up rather then be permissive because you are worried about the exceptions.

[fschmidt]

@fschmidt

Are you married? If you are married, how do you think your wife would feel if you said "I think its okay for married men to cheat on their wives?" How can you say you love her if you want to preserve your right to run off to a hooker anytime things aren't the best at home?

I am married. If asked "Is it okay for married men to have sex with prostitutes?", my wife would respond "yes" if asked privately and "no" if asked publicly. Women always virtue signal in public. But this topic deserves a longer, well thought out response. I will try to write a deeper post about prostitution this shabbat.

[Outcast9428]

@Mercer

God you really are a f***ing black hole.

@MarcosZeitola

I should mention that I don't, in general, believe chastity is realistic of anyone in this day in age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as people are in a committed relationship where marriage is the goal, its okay. I really think they should try to stay together because if they breakup, they are damaging each other. You are damaging yours and the other person's potential for a future relationship. But expecting chastity out of people simply isn't realistic.

I don't think its a tall order at all though for the majority of men to be faithful to their wives. And for their wives to be faithful to him.

@fschmidt

I can believe your wife would say that, because I know from experience that women want their opinions to match the opinions of the most important man in her life. That being said, I still don't respect it. I do not respect female cuckolds. I feel like they are almost as bad as the masochists. Those are not values I would ever teach to my wife.

[Pixel--Dude]

I should mention that I don't, in general, believe chastity is realistic of anyone in this day in age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as people are in a committed relationship where marriage is the goal, its okay. I really think they should try to stay together because if they breakup, they are damaging each other. You are damaging yours and the other person's potential for a future relationship. But expecting chastity out of people simply isn't realistic.

I don't think its a tall order at all though for the majority of men to be faithful to their wives. And for their wives to be faithful to him.

Sometimes staying together can have a detrimental effect for those involved. If I had stayed with my ex, despite having a child together, we'd have both been more damaged than we are today with the added bonus that we would drag our daughter along for the psychologically damaging ride. Since we broke up we have both been much happier and the kid doesn't have to listen to our toxic bullshit. So I don't think staying together is always the best option.

I do agree with your last part though that men and women should remain loyal to each other when in a committed relationship. I've been cheated on before and it isn't a nice feeling at all.

[MarcosZeitola]

I should mention that I don't, in general, believe chastity is realistic of anyone in this day in age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as people are in a committed relationship where marriage is the goal, its okay. I really think they should try to stay together because if they breakup, they are damaging each other. You are damaging yours and the other person's potential for a future relationship. But expecting chastity out of people simply isn't realistic.

This is fair, and we're pretty much in agreement there.

I don't think its a tall order at all though for the majority of men to be faithful to their wives. And for their wives to be faithful to him.

People are complex. Situations are complex. I have often heard, and in my experience this tends to be true, that women cheat out emotionally not having their needs met by a partner, whereas me tend to cheat for physical needs not being met. I think 99% of men wouldn't cheat if twice a week for about fifteen minutes, their wife would suck them off or open her legs for him for some quick action... but yeah, hormones change, women get tired, exhausted, and often want sex a lot less after some years of marriage and some children. Plus women need more effort to "get there" in terms of moods, whereas a man can usually just go any time and needs less "work".

So, yeah, I think there's a very real debate of men, even within marriage, not getting the amount of sex they desire. Or women feeling more or less forced to give their men sex even if they're not all that into it. Which is sad. I've heard a lot of married couples are more or less sexless after a while, in Japan especially the percentage of couples not getting it on is dramatically high. The modern world is incredibly demanding, people are stressed out, working long hours, and yes, intimacy can be a casualty in this battle we call life. Faithfulness is very much still the ideal state of things. Something to aspire to, yes, I do not deny this. But that doesn't mean it's easy, my friend.

Look, I married very young, the first time around. I was just 21 when I was engaged and expecting our first child. I had a pretty active sex life before this point, and I had my fair share of "conquests". In my relationship, things went stellar. But eight or nine years and three kids later... things did indeed change. I was naive, Outcast. Plain and simple. I'd love to hear your take on things in ten years my friend. You haven't really "been there, done that" but if you have, you may see the other side of this coin. Life isn't a fairy tale. And people change. Life changes them. Biology wired women to be very sexual and sensual early in relationship, to entice a man to impregnate them. Rinse, repeat, several times. And eventually, things change. Again, biology is to blame. Male and female needs seem alligned only early on in relationship, or in relationships where a man is often away from home for long periods of time, keeping things exciting and "special". For most couples, male and female sexual needs eventually grow in different directions, sadly. Hence, men stray and do so for different reasons than women.

[MarcosZeitola]

I should mention that I don't, in general, believe chastity is realistic of anyone in this day in age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as people are in a committed relationship where marriage is the goal, its okay. I really think they should try to stay together because if they breakup, they are damaging each other. You are damaging yours and the other person's potential for a future relationship. But expecting chastity out of people simply isn't realistic.

This is fair, and we're pretty much in agreement there.

I don't think its a tall order at all though for the majority of men to be faithful to their wives. And for their wives to be faithful to him.

People are complex. Situations are complex.

People are not complex at all. Most people are nothing more than animals who want to f**k someone with good genetics. That's it. There's a reason why more people fall in "love" with Chad or Stacy than ugly people and it's not their personalities. People aren't really much more advanced than animals.

Thats exactly the type of response I would expect from an ugly subhuman who was never loved by anyone.

[MarcosZeitola]

I should mention that I don't, in general, believe chastity is realistic of anyone in this day in age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as people are in a committed relationship where marriage is the goal, its okay. I really think they should try to stay together because if they breakup, they are damaging each other. You are damaging yours and the other person's potential for a future relationship. But expecting chastity out of people simply isn't realistic.

This is fair, and we're pretty much in agreement there.

I don't think its a tall order at all though for the majority of men to be faithful to their wives. And for their wives to be faithful to him.

People are complex. Situations are complex.

People are not complex at all. Most people are nothing more than animals who want to f**k someone with good genetics. That's it. There's a reason why more people fall in "love" with Chad or Stacy than ugly people and it's not their personalities. People aren't really much more advanced than animals.

Thats exactly the type of response I would expect from an ugly subhuman who was never loved by anyone.

The only reason you think differently is because of the bluepilled cuck values you were brainwashed with in addition to your privilege.

You remind me of a woke liberal with all your whining about privileges lol

[Lucas88]

The same thing applies to you. You are a fellow traditionalist on this forum, a real one, not a fake one. And for that reason alone I already have a lot more respect for you then I do for the masses. Being a traditionalist already shows me that you have a really strong moral character and set of principles. If you are a fellow traditionalist who is hated by other Jews for not going along with their bullshit… Then I see no reason to hold your ethnicity against you.

This is the charming guy who repeatedly says that he believes that 99% of people deserve to be killed and that the only thing from stopping him from shooting up a public area is the legal consequences and then seems to think that it's okay to scam people because, he tells us, most people are useless degenerates anyway, yet at the same time he has a "really strong moral character" and "set of principles" just because he's a "fellow traditionalist"! You're a good comedian, Outcast!

Kinda in the same vein as how that murdering hook-nosed sociopath Saul of Tarsus was a good, moral, upstanding Christian, right?

[Outcast9428]

The same thing applies to you. You are a fellow traditionalist on this forum, a real one, not a fake one. And for that reason alone I already have a lot more respect for you then I do for the masses. Being a traditionalist already shows me that you have a really strong moral character and set of principles. If you are a fellow traditionalist who is hated by other Jews for not going along with their bullshit… Then I see no reason to hold your ethnicity against you.

This is the charming guy who repeatedly says that he believes that 99% of people deserve to be killed and that the only thing from stopping him from shooting up a public area is the legal consequences and then seems to think that it's okay to scam people because, he tells us, most people are useless degenerates anyway, yet at the same time he has a "really strong moral character" and "set of principles" just because he's a "fellow traditionalist"! You're a good comedian, Outcast!

Kinda in the same vein as how that murdering hook-nosed sociopath Saul of Tarsus was a good, moral, upstanding Christian, right?

I get the feeling he is just blowing off steam. I don't think he is serious about it.

[Lucas88]

This is the charming guy who repeatedly says that he believes that 99% of people deserve to be killed and that the only thing from stopping him from shooting up a public area is the legal consequences and then seems to think that it's okay to scam people because, he tells us, most people are useless degenerates anyway, yet at the same time he has a "really strong moral character" and "set of principles" just because he's a "fellow traditionalist"! You're a good comedian, Outcast!

Kinda in the same vein as how that murdering hook-nosed sociopath Saul of Tarsus was a good, moral, upstanding Christian, right?

I get the feeling he is just blowing off steam. I don't think he is serious about it.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. It's obvious that he acts like the typical skanking Jew.

Jews tell themselves that non-Jews are evil and that Jews are therefore justified in scamming, deceiving or otherwise harming non-Jews. In fact, the Kabbalah teaches that only Jewish souls are born out of the divine light while all non-Jewish souls originate from the primordial chaotic darkness or the sitra achra and are therefore inherently evil and deserve to be enslaved or destroyed. Non-Jews are seen as nothing more than cattle to serve Jews or enemies to abuse.

Our dear and esteemed moderator's attitude is exactly the same. He tells us that 99% of people are "modern" and "degenerate" and therefore deserve to be killed and then advocates for scamming those people. How more Jewy could you possibly get?

I for one would never trust any biological Jew. They are, as he describes them, "optimized parasites" after all. It is also possible that any Jew that I might meet might have been exposed to Talmudic thought and practices its teachings. I am therefore wary of all Jews. It seems that, in his case, you can take the Jew out of Judaism but you can't take the Judaism out of the Jew.

You are naïve if you think that anybody who calls themselves a "traditionalist" and claims to support "Christian values" is a moral and righteous person. Especially if that person is a skanking sheeny!