OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Tuesday, April 26

#23716

OMG:  Idea: to combat our decreasing population, why not legally require all women to have one child by the time they turn 25, and impose severe tax penalties on women over 30 who have less than two children? Then you can offer financial incentives to any family with three or more kids. BOOM, naturally increasing population.

122 comments

  1. This works, but make the penalty stiffer: taxing women with less than two children by 30 is cool, but if they have none by that age you should just sterilize them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might as well. Past 30 you're looking at taking estrogen shots for a few years to convince your body you're actually 20-something, then trying to conceive. I can't imagine what that does to a male fetus.

      Delete
    2. 1a obviously that's how feminists are conceived.

      Delete
    3. Are you fucking retarded? The planet is suffering an overpopulation crisis. If you didn't notice, we're in the midst of a global food and water shortage.

      Delete
    4. 1c, only in areas unlucky enough to be unsuitable for growing food, with minimal water. The planet can handle our population otherwise - we just need to cull the idiots living in unsustainable locales.

      Delete
    5. This isn't Africa, 1c.

      Let them deal with their own problems

      Delete
  2. what the fuck is wrong with you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a pretty stupid plan.

      But the government should be offering incentives to families, rather than importing human garbage that won't contribute a damn thing to the country other than shawarma and Shariah

      Delete
    2. I dunno 2a, I REALLY love shawarma.

      Delete
    3. Shawarma is delicious.

      Delete
  3. This is a good start, but for it to properly work we also need to get women to realize that their experiment with the work force has failed, and get them back to actually raising the kids they have in the household.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feminists (read: the average woman brainwashed by the media, not the ""feminist scholars"") are actually fighting against this quite actively. If a woman decides to stay home with her children she is seen as lazy, irresponsible, not contributing to society etc. This is how women always are anyway; they insult eachother and fling shit. Skinny bitches hating on fat bitches and vice-versa. Doesn't matter to them which one is actually the right thing (staying home): they will vehemently defend their lifestyle and demonize the other woman's.

      Since women are now in public life, Feminism sort of represents the female concencus, and women love to fit in and follow the status quo... So they go to work.

      I have witnessed this first hand. "working moms", and especially "feminists" look down upon stay at home moms with an incredible amount of condescension. I personally think it is simply jealousy of the most primal nature, but these women have been convinced they are better off trying to be men.

      Delete
    2. A woman in the workforceApril 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM

      I really hope that you're a troll. If this is something that you sincerely believe then I feel very sorry for your parents for the shame they must feel at having raised such an ignorant child with an undeserved sense of superiority. If you're a troll, that's honestly not much better... What do you have to gain from being purposefully hurtful and demeaning like this?

      Delete
    3. @3b, why don't you refute what @3 and @3a are saying instead of resorting to personal attacks and playing the victim? Are you denying that stay-at-home moms are denigrated by feminists? Are you denying that this is bad for society, has destroyed the traditional family and has created a demographic crisis?

      I know there are a lot of trolls in this thread, but some valid points have been made also.

      Delete
    4. ^I crisis for sure 3c. The workplace demographic is shifting rapidly to some terrifying circus where you have to talk to women you aren't pursuing romantically and treat them like people. All the while children are left alone for MINUTES of each day after school to scrape together a home life for themselves. Hellish.

      Delete
    5. Way to prove my point for me, 3b "woman in the workplace" ... Fucking idiot.

      If you have to resort to personal attacks on me about my family then you've already lost the argument and you're showing exactly why women shouldn't be involved in logical discussion.

      There's nothing wrong with my family. I had a stay at home mom and my wife also stays home. They are both constantly dealing with condescending cunts in the form of feminists and working """"" moms """"" (whose nannies raise their kids)

      Delete
    6. @3e what was 3b supposed to do when you started it by attacking their (supposed) gender? "This is how women always are anyway; they insult eachother and fling shit", "women love to fit in and follow the status quo", "women have been convinced they are better off trying to be men". How fucked up and misogynistic is your worldview bro? If you're not a troll something is definitely fucked up in your head.

      For the record, it is true that there is a lot of unfair judgement towards stay at home moms (and dads too, but for different reasons). That's something we should be correcting. But don't get all psycho and women-bashing about it.

      Delete
    7. It's not women-bashing, 'bro'. Women do insult eachother constantly, women do love to fit in, and they are convinced they're better off being men at work.

      These are actually pretty obvious things and the first two are simply the emotional/social difference between men and women.

      Men cooperate, women compete. They are constantly criticizing eachother. They complain about things like "body image" when it's just women talking shit about other women in magazines. Men literally don't care, they aren't responsible for the beauty industry that makes women feel bad about themselves. That's only one example, stay at home moms vs. working moms being another. There are a ton more you'd see if you actually spent any time with women.

      Secondly, women do follow the status quo. They are evolutionarily hardwired to do so. When a pack of men took over a village, they took the women. They learn to adapt. They do as they are told. Hence why nearly every women will identify as a feminist despite having no clear defition of the term or even a faintest idea of what it's about. They will virtue signal their friends about every little SJW topic available at the time, they are the worst kind of Communists, they can't help but feel bad for everyone in the entire world so we end up turning into charity organizations rather than countries (see Germany and their female leader) ... I could go on but why bother? Apparently I'm just a psycho.

      Delete
    8. @3g There is no "apparently" about it.

      Delete
    9. ^ disregarding your whole argument and replying with a """witty""" one-liner. That's women in a nutshell. Don't try to use logic with them.

      Delete
    10. ^3h here.
      Being an insufferable ass, not recognizing that your argument is based on bigotry rather than logic, and not realizing that the person that you're responding to is male anyways. That's 3i in a very small, very sad nutshell.

      Delete
    11. ^Google: Quotation marks

      Delete
    12. Yup, men certainly never get competitive, that's not a thing we do at all... *rolls eyes*

      Yes, there are social differences between how men approach the world and how women do. But I'd argue that isn't because women are some sort of "other" or "lesser" human, but because we have social structures in place that raise people to see and interact with the world differently depending on their gender.

      Maybe I'm the nutty humanist in the room, but I honestly do feel that at the end of the day we're all just people, with our own virtues, vices, strengths, and foibles, and that's okay. Good people, shitty people, kind people, manipulative people, altruistic people, self-interested people... these aren't things that divide themselves by race or gender.

      ...Unless of course, you turn race or gender into an identity that needs protecting. But let's move away from that, and show a little respect for individual free agency, yeah?

      Delete
    13. When did I say women are lesser? That's the problem with you people. You can't hear anything without making someone a victim

      Not my fault you can't see patterns 3l. You know lack of pattern recognition is a sign of downs syndrome right?

      P.S I wrote 3g, and not 3i. You did in fact dismiss everything I said in favor of a witty one liner. You already lost the argument if that's your rhetoric. There's no ""bigotry"" in my argument you retard, stop using words you don't understand.

      I am simply putting forth my observations. Observations that were once seen as common sense and obvious until feminism came along and distorted reality, as women like to do.

      Delete
    14. 3l here, I'm actually not the same person you were previously conversing with in this thread.

      You'll note I didn't dispute the existence of the pattern you brought up. I simply pointed out that it's entirely possible those patterns emerge as a result of socialization, not biology. At the end of the day, I'm not a woman so I can't honestly say how women see the world or what they can and can't do. But I value free agency so I'm cool leaving it up to them to decide their own lives. I just don't particularly think we should structure our society in a way that inherently crushes even the opportunity to try, on the basis of your observations.

      Delete
    15. You seem to misunderstand my motives, 3n. I don't particularly care what women do with their lives. I care that Western countries are running so low on births that we have to bring in all these immigrants to fill the gap for us. Except they do far more than that: they slowly become the majority and demand special treatment all the while.

      So it would be preferable if there were more women trying to have children (healthy children, so not at age 35+), rather than taking jobs in the workforce that we have more than enough men to do.

      Delete
  4. Who said the population is decreasing? Immigration is a thing you know

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, but the population of actual Canadians is decreasing.

      Delete
    2. ^ is that determined by how white you are?

      Delete
    3. Immigration only exists because of decreasing populations. And it is a failed experiment.

      Delete
    4. 4a: Unless you're talking about Aboriginal Canadians, your fears are unfounded colonial bullshit.

      Delete
  5. Forbidding abortion would be a great start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely! And ban all forms of birth control. STI's don't have to spread; we can create an official registry and quarantine those with permanent illnesses like HPV or HIV.

      Delete
    2. @5a, I think you're taking it a bit too far. Your post is obviously sarcastic, but mine wasn't. I actually believe abortion is a disaster for society (other than being morally wrong). Abortion has destroyed the family and led to the demographic crisis, which led to the immigration crisis. Abortion is the mother of all our problems. Being against abortion is a totally valid political position despite liberals' efforts to smear us.

      Delete
    3. I don't know, 5a is onto something. And hell, if a woman is under 30, healthy, and not having kids then just round them up for impregnation.

      "why not legally require all women to have one child by the time they turn 25" right? If you're a 25 year old woman and single you'd better go get knocked up by a stranger. Either way, hope they didn't have anything else going on.

      Delete
    4. Translation of 5a: don't take my casual sex away oh noes!!

      As if people would sleep around when there's no birth control. If you do, and get an STD, that's how it should be.

      Delete
    5. 5d: Google: Human History.

      Delete
    6. 5e: I just said "if you do choose to and get and STD then that's how it should be"

      Google: learn to read English

      Delete
    7. What the hell is wrong with you people?? The last thing that this world needs is more babies with parents that don't want them. If you're going to completely disregard the happiness of the potential mother and father then at least think of the happiness of the child and the kind of life it will have. No good could come from a kid being raised by young parents who were forced by the government into that role.
      Jesus christ, we already have kids that are neglected and unadopted while the global population is disgustingly high. Raising the birthrate shouldn't even be a conversation we're having, let alone nonconsensually doing it.

      Delete
    8. No one cares about all the unadopted black kids 5g. That's why they're unadopted.

      As for the rest of your comment, you're extremely naïve and don't understand how parenting works. Just like puberty, there are natural systems that prepare you for parenthood when necessary.

      People used to have kids much younger; the difference is that the state and families used to actually care about children. Now we care about a dead Syrian boy more than our own kids.

      Your worldview enforced by this overpopulation myth is a delusion. Overpopulation will only kill off the weakest and poorest, and expose the Communists. No problem there. The only reason not to have kids because of "overpopulation" is if you're a communist and care more about being a "global citizen" than having a family and providing the best for yourself, your family and your neighbours.

      If you can't survive without the systems that would collapse under overpopulation (mainly food) then you're probably a waste of space anyway.

      We should be talking about raising birth rates. If you want to talk about lowering birth rates, concern yourself with Africa, all Muslim countries and South America. Western nations are barely keeping themselves alive: we have to import a ton of immigrants just to sustain our population, which leads to decline and eventually the catastrophic future you're so afraid of. You think the west will still have such a high quality of life when it's run by 90% African and Arab Muslims? Because that's where ts headed with current birth rates. Look at the UK. They will be a minority in their own country in a generation or two.

      If you have to keep asking "what the hell is wrong with you people??" Over and over again I'm going to assume you're too much of an idiot to even understand what's being said and the implications.

      Delete
  6. stop trolling here

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm pretty happy with the decreasing population. As it is, the planet can't support how many people we have so having fewer could only help with that.
    Plus, on the personal side of it, a lot of you are idiots and the gene pool would be better off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1, the existence of this post and most of the comments reflect exactly the conundrum I've been mulling over. The kinds of people we want having children recognize that there is no need for a rising population while the people fighting back are raising kids that grow up to post this shit.

      Delete
    2. The solution to that is war. Nuke the poorer countries, the Muslim countries, the African countries whose population causes all these crises. Then restructure Western Society so our population can flourish.

      Delete
    3. If you're happy about it then you're an economically illiterate idiot who can't see beyond black science man memes about society. You are part of that gene pool that shouldn't be passed on, congratulations.

      Not only that, you completely neglect the fact that we don't have less people here. Re less children Canadians have, the more people (read: idiots even worse than Canadians) we bring in from Africa, India, Middle East, Thailand etc.

      You must live in an all-white middle-class suburb, or be a result of immigration yourself to hold such a naïve position.

      @7a: "the kinds of people we want raising children recognize there is no need for a rising population" .... What kinds of people would that be? Feminists who work until their ovaries are about to shrivel up, so they add a child to their checklist of things to do in life? Or you mean Liberals who support immigration of third world human trash because of low birth rates? Or maybe you mean Atheist edgelords like yourself who fall for the overpopulation meme and cuck yourself out of existence.

      Delete
    4. ^Why yes, I am a result of immigration. My parents immigrated twice, worked their way up from delivering pizza and watering plants, and now own the biggest house on the street and 4 other properties. Both me and my sister are employed in our fields out of University and contributing members of society with no debt. I guess being human trash doesn't stop me owning "real Canadians" at their own game. Sucks to suck, get used to it.

      Delete
    5. ^Sorry, should have said "doesn't stop anyone". NO ONE should be listening to your shit 7c.

      Delete
    6. I hate people like 7 more than I hate any kind of leftard. They're the most cancerous form of cuck. You hate the human species? FUCKING KILL YOURSELF. "Save the planet" lol, why don't you go first?

      Delete
    7. ^Wow. What do you suppose happens when we reach a tipping point and everything comes crashing down because of overpopulation? Think a step ahead.

      Delete
    8. @7F I don't hate humans at all; I mean, we can be ignorant and hateful at times but we have our merits as well. It's more that I love our species enough that I don't want us to destroy the world that we're living on (since THAT would mean an end to humanity, as opposed to my proposed idea of just less of us). It's like, I love cake but there's definitely a point where I find it good to say "Okay, that's enough cake or I'm going to snap the legs of my chair."

      Delete
    9. I was obviously referring to third world immigrants when I said "human trash", not you chinky. We have other issues with you.

      Delete
    10. ^Guess again!

      Delete
  8. There are too many people on earth already. We need less births, not more. Too bad OP wasn't one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say +1 but -1 makes more sense in the context. X)

      Delete
  9. Population is decreasing in the developed world while it is increasing in the developing world. This is a great thing because now the wealth can be more concentrated in our own offpsprings. Eventually, our few offsprings will be so disproportionately wealthy that the slave trade will start again, albeit not just from Africa but other overpopulated poor countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong. Your gullible offspring will be taught to racemix with the "developing world" and become them. Pay attention: the interracial couple meme is everywhere.

      Even shoppers drug Mart has an advertisement where the black & white couple are buying some "nessesities" from shoppers, including a pregnancy test.

      Before I get flamed for this: even BUZZFEED is against race mixing. Look up their video of racemixed people saying they feel like aliens that don't fit in anywhere. It's a horrible thing to do to someone, and a horrible idea to begin with.

      Delete
    2. 9a, the point of that is supposed to be "yeah, racism against mixed-race people is a thing too, and it needs to stop." Why should race matter any more than gender when determining who you do and don't love?

      Delete
    3. That's transphobic u shitlord!

      But seriously, that's not what it was about at all. They presented a wide variety of mixes in races, and they were ALL looked down upon by their communities. Doesn't that tell you something? That maybe human beings are inherently """racist""" and prefer their own?

      Buzzfeed accidentally dropping the red pills

      Delete
    4. lol so sweet. I prefer Trans tho thank u very much.

      racist? is that a reference?

      "THANKS" for the red pill

      Delete
    5. of course you're a tranny, lmao. go to bed Ethan

      Delete
    6. 9c, yes it does tell me something - communities that construct identities along racial lines don't like it when individuals mix across those lines, because it muddies the identity.

      Fortunately, I think that muddying is actually a good thing. If there's one thing the world could use, it's less nationalism and more humanism.

      Delete
    7. 9f what a terrible attitude.. Why do you think it's a good thing to get rid of? What about language, culture, community?

      Do you really think we can all just be one huge community? I assume your utopian vision excludes religion then..?

      I'm not saying they "construct identities along racial lines", what abuse of language that is... Identity politics is really quite annoying. Anyway, what I think is that racial groups, who are not a group because they " Identity " that way, grew together and only trust their own. Rightfully so: if a strange man approaches your village in the old times, you make a plan to kill him if he can't be talked to.

      It's a little different now, of course, but the sentiment is there. The distrust that is, not murder.

      Delete
    8. 9g, I have no desire to eliminate nationalism altogether. A diversity of language, culture, and community is a positive thing. But excessive, isolated nationalism brings nothing good with it IMO.

      And my point, 9g, is that the circumstances you describe only really apply in societies that are otherwise accustomed to some form of racial homogeny or racial segregation. Because if you grow up surrounded by a dozen different races and cultures, intermixing with those other groups doesn't seem weird at all, and cause for discrimination drops away. This also typically leads to a less coherent group identity (see: discussions of what it means to be a Canadian for a good example of such decoherence), but I'd argue the resultant society is better off.

      Delete
    9. How are they better off? Canadians have no identity and it makes them susceptible to identity politics and joining fradulent globalist causes that do nothing to help their lives. They are disenfranchised and live a life of confusion. And without identity you just have people with giant egos competing with everyone in a free for all. Or you have special interest groups form with their own agendas out above all other people, with little or no backlash from the community, because there is no community.

      I get where you're coming from, my father-in-law is the same way. But I think you can have excessive nationalism without isolation. You can still trade, have tourism, share works of art etc. without losing your sense of national identity. I think it's too late for Canada anyway. At least the US is making a stance against it all.

      Delete
    10. 9i:

      Societies unconstrained by the strong collective identity that is nationalism tend to be better at the promotion of individual free expression and agency. I don't personally think there's much that's more important that equal opportunity and free agency. I mean, obviously there have to be some reasonable restrictions on those liberties, to prevent individual actions from robbing others of their freedoms... and the state has a role to play in the creation of an equal opportunity society, as well. And there's nothing wrong with taking pride in your community, your nation, and its collective accomplishments. But ultimately, all of those things should come second in importance to individual self expression and basic liberty. Structuring society in a way that goes beyond that robs us of the things that make us most human.

      This isn't crazy talk. Nationalism was primarily a 19th century invention (which peaked in the 20th century), whose legacy is... well, mostly, wars that happened for silly reasons.

      Delete
    11. I don't place very much value on "individual free expression" after seeing where that leads us. I understand the status quo is against a collective identity but that isn't how you build a strong society. It's how you build a society of chaos and people who serve only their own self interest.

      Delete
    12. 9k, I disagree. For starters, I don't think self-interest is primarily what drives people. It is significant, but I do think most people have values that go beyond simply what is good for them. Secondly, I agree the resulting society is chaotic - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chaos has its drawbacks, but it's also what leads to the emergence of disruptors who ultimately revolutionize markets and change life for the better everywhere.

      More deeply than that, I think a strong society is irrelevant if you have to repress the individual spirit in order to get there - by that point, you've robbed people of the things that make them most human. Or they find ways to express themselves in abeyance of the law. If the result of individual free expression is the general demise of humanity, I actually am okay with that - I'd prefer a society where human lives burn brightly for a shorter time, then a grey world that lasts forever.

      But that's a fundamental view which has been shaped by my own life's experiences: from my upbringing, to the media I've consumed, to the education I've received, to the things I've witnessed. So you're welcome to disagree with it if you see things differently; but I'm not sure there's any further constructive debate we can have if that's the case.

      Delete
    13. At least you can admit that your views have been placed into your head purposely by media and educators... That's far more than others are capable of.

      We do fundamentally disagree. Your metric for progress is how well the markets do, and mine is how happy and fulfilled people are. Kind of strange since I'm in Finance.

      People do indeed work beyond their own self-interest, but in a chaotic country where the market rules, it's very man for himself. That's not how you build communities and culture. The only culture left is consumer culture at that point, which is what we are looking at currently. It's funny you would bring up the market because I am reading a book right now about how humanism and international corporations have created an "empire of nothing" where we are all connected but stand for nothing. We perscute those who persecute, and only judge those who judge. What a backwards world.

      Individuals have plenty of self-expression in nationalism anyway. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by that, but I don't consider things like identifying as a wolfkin or dressing like little ponies to be "self expression", just mental illness.

      A man has no "self" without a social identity anyway. That's why we have so many weak effeminate men running around being the poster boys of humanism that works against their self interest. They are lost and don't even have a compass because everything is morally relative and "everything is awesome"

      Delete
    14. 9l here. I will clarify what I mean be "self-expression" at least. I really should have said "freedom of self-determination." I mean it in the pluralistic sense - the right of all individuals to determine for themselves what it means to live a good life, and the freedom to pursue that life openly (provided, of course, that they don't suppress that same right and freedom in others in the process - that's where the State comes in).

      The maximization of collective happiness - known in academic circles as utilitarianism - is probably pretty close to the opposite of what I believe in. It's not that it doesn't sound pretty - but I think it's not reflective of human nature, and can only be obtained through a suppression of human free will. But if you're interested in others who have espoused views similar to yours (minus the statism), check out some JS Mill sometime... but I recommend also reading the works of those scholars who've eviscerated such views over the years. ;)

      Delete
    15. Human nature is not individualistic. We built things and advanced as tribes, not singular units. We will clearly never agree, since I see humanism as a philosophy in which people lack the freedom of self determination. You just become another meaningless plankton among the billions of "global citizens".

      In nationalism and more particularly, tribalism, you are far more important and have much more of an identity, and more of an ability to develop that identity and your way of life with those around you. But the globalists don't like tribes that look out for their own very much, since they want everyone at McDonalds, so.. We receive a humanist education so that we accept the hordes of refugees and immigrants with literal opposite views from us.

      Delete
    16. Eh, I'm not opposed to a certain amount of tribalism. I think strong communities that look out for their own matter - are essential, even. I was never suggesting that human nature is individualistic, just that it's not natural for us to think of our actions in terms of how they affect the whole community - we're more likely to think about how try affect those closest to us.

      BUT my limit to tribalism is when it reaches a point where it ostracizes those who decide that living a good life means something beyond the tribe. Or that it means something WITH someone from beyond the tribe. IMO the easiest way to avoid this is to have strong local communities assembled along lines other than race or blood. But I'll admit I'm still suspicious even then because I'm still not convinced all these scenarios don't naturally lead to the rise of groupthink and other negative mob mentalities.

      Delete
    17. > For starters, I don't think self-interest is primarily what drives people.

      Perceived self-interest is what drives people. This includes group self-interest if the group identity is strong enough. This may be surprising to you, but you and your "selfless" humanist friends are really acting in what you perceive as a self-interest as well.

      Delete
    18. ^Never said humanism was tantamount to selflessness. It's not, nor should it be.

      And no, I think perceived self-interest plays a significant role in our lives, but fails to tell the full story - or even all of the story's most important parts. It would certainly be naive to ignore it (both its benefits and its drawbacks), but there's a difference between a bit of healthy cynicism when thinking about human nature, and the unfortunate attitudes that result from boiling everything down to some form of perceived self-interest.

      Delete
    19. 9q is someone else btw, not me (9o).

      I think your problem here is who you see as your "whole community". Of course you can't please the whole community as a humanist, because the community is the entire world, including people who completely disagree with your way of life. It's absurd.

      From that context, no, tribalism does not work. That's not what I'm advocating.

      Delete
    20. You can be a humanist without necessarily having a globalist perspective. In fact, I'd argue that humanism lends itself more effectively to local communities than it does to broader thinking.

      The effect of my approach isn't to negate our social nature, or to repress tight-knit communities. It's simply to move away from a devaluing of the "other" simply because they had the misfortune of not being born within your tribe - instead recognizing that they are still a human being with the same right to self-determination that you have. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them! It just means you can't justify attacking them for it - unless their way of life reasonably threatens your own self-determination.

      Following from that premise, it's natural to arrive at a series of "fundamental rights" that underly and define the pluralistic society we purport to live in here in Canada - essentially, a set of limits on what one can agree or be compelled to sacrifice for the "good of the group". You can then forge small community identities within that framework. It's just a question of what you build that identity around.

      Delete
    21. Right, and your humanism reduces us all to "just humans" so Muslims, Asians, Indians etc. are all considered to be culturally equivalent to the Anglos and French who built Canada, meaning Canadian culture represents absolutely nothing.

      I get what you're saying, but at the same time, humanism will always lend itself to more and more vague definitions of who the "other" is until there is no "other", especially if women have any say in it.

      Anyway, school starts again tomorrow so I'm done with OMGUW for a while :)

      It was a pleasure to speak to someone who has a real, educated opinion.. Even if I disagree.

      Delete
    22. Likewise 9u, thanks for being civil.

      Delete
    23. @9f: muddled here: which would u choose? Nationalism or humanism?

      Delete
    24. @9w: humanism, within a context of national, regional, and community pride.

      Delete
  10. That's great! What's going to happen to a country full of unwanted children growing up with parents who are not ready for kids?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never said the parents should raise the children, 10. The state can run live-in schools that raise kids from the time they can be weaned off of their mother and until they turn 16, and then assign them to specialized schools based on their core aptitudes. Except for the girls, who will undergo two years of mandatory training in effective child-rearing.

      Delete
    2. Too bad such radical change can only be implemented following a violent revolution...

      Delete
    3. Maybe you can kill all the women who don't like this idea!

      Delete
    4. @10c women will do whatever we tell them. It is the men who oppose this idea who are dangerous and must be killed. That is the way every revolution in human history happened.

      Delete
    5. 10d. Is correct. Women haven't made this choice. Cucked men who think like #10 are the problem.

      No one is "ready" to have kids, that's why your brain undergoes drastic changes during pregnancy. Feel free to actually learn something instead of spewing memes about unwanted children. Just because your parents were shit and you hate kids, that doesn't mean all women want to be riding the cock carousel until 35 when they realize their ovaries have a shelf life.

      Delete
    6. 10e - You are the problem, and a cancer to our society. It's entitled, selfish morons with superiority complexes like you that are holding us all back and turning us into a race of emotional troglodytes. Your existence is a pollution to the human race.

      Delete
    7. 10f, please. The selfish people are those who spend their entire lives partying it up and accumulating pointless wealth instead of having children.

      I don't feel entitled to a damn thing, either. I work 1,000 times harder than you do, I guarantee it. I have two kids and regularly pull 90s in my courses. I live in a $300,000 townhouse and drive a $45,000 car. You have nothing on me: you are the trog, sitting here defending the end of the western world with your emotional complaints about facts I laid out about neurophysiological changes in the brain during pregnancy... And that women whore around until they're 35 and finally have children with the hell of estrogen injections and fertility treatments. And even when they finally have their kid, if they can get passed the severely increased rate of miscarriages, it's far more likely their kid has health problems or ends up retarded. Ever wonder why Autism is on the rise? Does Africa have a problem with Autism? Do Arab countries?

      Delete
    8. ^Assuming everyone on here is looking for a mortgage, and two kids at home while in University then yeah, we probably have nothing on you. Personally, I'd be miserable dealing with two kids and a house at my stage in life. To each their own (although that's clearly not your policy)

      Delete
    9. I know, how horrible... being an adult... uhg.

      Delete
    10. 10g, either you're our age with 2 kids or you're an old fuck coming back to school. Either way, despite your 90s, you're still miles behind us in life. Get a life, you brain damaged cunt.

      Delete
    11. 10i: I value my free time, what can I say. I'd rather have it now then have my kids grow up and move out when I'm a few years younger. Plus down the line I'll be in a better position to pay someone else to do the menial stuff so it's really just a bad time to be doubling down on adult.

      Delete
    12. 10j: Ignoring all arguments for more ad homs. You tell me to get a life?? What more of a life can I get? Do I need to play video games with you and watch anime to have a life? Or maybe I need to go out to clubs? Been there, done that.

      "Despite your 90s you're miles behind us in life"... Riiiight. I will graduate at 26 and be miles ahead of you.

      10k: good luck affording nannies and shit to do everything for you.
      I understand your attitude, it's typical, as talked about elsewhere in this thread. And I am definitely not advocating having children while in school; I would imagine a better age would be a few years after graduation, but that's how old I am. However, that's with regards to men. Women are most fit to have children at around 20-25, which are years spent in school and starting a career, before having children. Essentially you are setting yourself up, as one of those women, to never have the best children you could have produced. And we have enough autists in this world as it is, so it would be nice if more women would be having healthy, strong and virile children.

      The issue is that you assume you'll have healthy children, and conceive without resorting to quite extreme medical procedures when you decide to have kids "down the line" if you wait too long. After ~26-28 a woman's ability to birth healthy children declines dramatically. Just as testosterone levels in men start to decline at 25.

      There's a reason 30-something year old men who become successful try to find a significantly younger wife. It's not just for looks. The women their age have shrivelled up uteri that can't carry children to term without extreme medical intervention. I learned what it takes, it's insane. Estrogen shots for years, right before having sex, that make you nauseous. Real sexy, for one. These fertility treatments are to trick your body into thinking you're younger because you wasted your best years. And yet we have all sorts of strange "issues" these days with men who have elevated estrogen levels. Whether they be as extreme as transgendered men: who are theorized to have been exposed to too much estrogen in the womb. Or just the average chubby, round bloke. Estrogen makes you hold on to weight and have weak, womanly features. You see this everywhere now. Even without the estrogen shots, a child birthed to an older mother is weaker.

      I understand that in our current societal setup, it is difficult to have children young. Unless of course you're an immigrant on welfare, then it's all to your benefit. This should be changed, the subject of the thread. The child tax benefit is a good step in the right direction, but Trudeau took away income splitting which takes away a significant amount of income from homes with stay at home moms. Terrible idea. The man calls himself a feminist yet every policy I've encountered towards housewives, from the federal level down to OSAP has been discriminatory. Once children are a year old, OSAP demands that the wife works, brings in $3,000/term. Seems reasonable I guess. Except that now the government pays for the daycare subsidy instead, at ~$800 per month. So they lose $200 while making my wife work. Smart stuff.
      Anyway, she doesn't work, that's another story. I worked around it when I found out and it worked out very very well.

      FYI I still have free time. I'll have even more when I can leave work at work instead of bringing it home with me as a student. I have enough time to work out, serve my country part-time, and even spend time with friends. It's not all bad as people would have you believe.

      Delete
    13. I hope your docile, uneducated, and wussy wife produced some intelligent children for you. The only thing she knows how to do is push out babies. What a catch!!

      Delete
    14. 10m, thank you for perfectly exemplifying the condescending attitude that Feminists have towards motherhood.

      1. Docile. So? As a woman should be. Stupid comment.

      2. Uneducated? Not really. She's the smartest woman I ever met: the only one who could keep up with me intellectually, the only woman that had read some of the same books, had some of the same interests. And trust me, I dated enough women to get a feel for what was out there. I know where you're coming from. That's what you get with Western women now, and I don't blame you for assuming these things since I was even more apathetic about women before meeting her.

      3. Wussy... Uh? Isn't this normally an insult for men? Childbearing is hardly for wussies, anyway. Ever seen a baby being delivered?

      4. She knows a hell of a lot more than you do. Like how to respond to someone without making baseless, idiotic personal attacks.

      5. What a catch, yes. I agree. She is amazing.

      Lastly, yes, my kids are extremely intelligent. They are developed far beyond their age milestones both in physical and intellectual development.

      Do you have anything to say on the subject that isn't a personal attack? I can deflect whatever it is you'd like to throw at me, since I quite enjoy my life.

      Delete
    15. 10m is a troll, but its true that without a woman who is happy to stay at home your entire situation would change (which I guess is the point of the discussion). That said, can you really blame a woman for wanting to do more in life from the age of "20-25" on-wards? I get that children are the epitome of rewarding, but not everyone is happy being a nanny/housekeeper and nothing else.

      Delete
    16. Additionally, 10m, I would take an "uneducated" woman over a woman who took Women's studies, Gender Studies, or some other BS "education" any day.

      You seem to assume that one can only be educated by attending a University. Arts courses in Universities are hardly an education, that's why they're unemployable.

      I essentially already have an "Arts" education that I learned as an autodidact. The books are all out there and free, there's no need to pay someone thousands of dollars to tell you when to read them.

      Delete
    17. 10o, how can you call 10m a troll then spit out the same rhetoric?

      " not everyone is happy being a nanny/housekeeper and nothing else."

      Specifically "and nothing else" ...

      Do you see the condescension now?

      A woman's life isn't over when she has children.

      Delete
    18. ^I was only talking about work/career in my whole reply. Nothing personal. I get that you've had bad experience with people, especially here, but you're also not above insulting others and your defensiveness is taking away from your own points.

      A woman's life is definitely not over, and I don't have experience with it personally, but I can't imagine my housework combined with cleaning up after kids ever being as stimulating and driving as my time at work. Again, I'm a man and have no kids, but if my girlfriend says she wants a career and wouldn't be happy with something I can't imagine being happy with then I can't imagine not understanding that.

      Delete
    19. A woman's brain undergoes significant restructuring during pregnancy. It doesn't matter if she thinks she will be happy or not, because she will be a completely different person after the child is born.

      Delete
    20. i think i will be happy, its nice to let go of things Once in a while.

      Delete
    21. career woman here: lmao @ above insulting ppl. Maybe if u distance urself from a problem enough it wont hit u in the back!

      Delete
    22. What the fuck are you even saying, 10u?

      Here's an "educated" woman that can't even form a coherent sentence... And that's not an insult, it's just pointing out the obvious.

      You ignored every single point made to make some stupid irrelevant, totally incomprehensible "witty" remark. You're just proving everything I've said to be correct.

      10t. Motherhood is not "letting go of things", it is much more difficult than having a job.

      Delete
  11. Is this thread a contest for the most outrageous bait you can come up with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure seems that way.

      Delete
    2. I certainly hope so. It's disheartening to think that anyone would harbour such hatred and utter disregard for others. I didn't think this sort of unprovoked vitriol existed in our school. What have we come to?
      If this is a "bait" thread then I don't see the appeal of this sort of thing. Why would you want to be purposefully hurtful to strangers by picking on their differences and insecurities? How is that funny?

      Delete
    3. ^ lmao someone got triggered

      Delete
    4. Congrats, you got me... I hope it makes you feel a little better about yourself knowing that someone out there was hurt by your cruel words.

      Delete
    5. ^ lol no I'm not the one who posted above sweetie. Sorry that you got hurt by reading this thread, but believe me, this is nowhere near the worst thing you will read on the Internet, so save your feels for the real life <3

      Delete
  12. How about putting all these international asian students in a gas chamber. There's honestly way too many of them and they're so fucking rich and spoiled. Fucking faggot juggalos need to be exterminated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The world would be better off without white people. They are the devils who destroyed this world.

      Delete
    2. Let's just gas the whole damn planet if this thread is an accurate representation of the human race.

      Delete
    3. 12a, go back to your country then please.

      12b, the nihilism is strong. That's why you don't understand this.

      Delete
  13. Two days later: "Why are there no girls at UW???"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are too busy fucking non-autistic guys at Queen's and Western...

      Delete
  14. The smarter way is to stop incentivizing women's higher education:
    ->More child bearing
    ->Less women in liberal arts = feminism is weakened = healthier society

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's just shut universities down completely and send people to specialized schools that teach them the job skills they need to effectively contribute to society. Research can be moved into the private sector, and government funds can be allotted to areas that make a difference

      Delete
    2. Interesting idea 14a.
      If we DIDN'T ever have the university system, I'm sure the concept would seem ridiculous. We are essentially subsidizing an expensive signalling arms race.
      But at the same time, academic research can be an economic goldmine, though its hard to say what areas of research will be fruitful.
      We use the wasteful undergrad system to funnel funds to research in a way that is easier to sell to the public. If it was coming directly from tax, there would be constant public pressure to shut down research that is not immediately useful, to the detriment of long term economic development.

      Delete
    3. lets test my journalism skills.
      14 is a very very "bad luck" number.
      redonkulous is the correct spelling. Anyways, about subsidizing One should never rent from a haunted house. I think investing in advertising can be "fruitful" in the non-literal way. Ill end it here for reasons unknown

      Delete
    4. what the fuck, 4c? Lay off the drugs guy.

      Delete
  15. fucking keyboard warriors everywhere REEEEEEE

    ReplyDelete
  16. lol. good plan, but you still won't get laid with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Boom here: i think getting laid is a Double standard

    ReplyDelete