Message from @Monstrous Moonshine
Discord ID: 686981750781378699
@snake I don't really care tbh. This is basically just irrelevant talk that doesn't affect policy whatsoever, I just sit and spectate.
>outdoing the left in degeneracy to own the libtards
The Kosher Sandwich
If everything is conservative, nothing is. Brilliant, just gotta keep moving the goalpost.
How much longer until the family structure is no longer considered a conservative value? Judging from all the other "this is not a conservative view", it will happen eventually. And then we're all fucked, it's game over.
When I said there are no functional polyamorous relationships, I meant it. There are none, not a single one. Nada, zero. They're all dysfunctional.
Deep down most people know this, but the argument of sexual liberation is used like a stick to beat them down with if they dare to speak up. The ones wanting stability and functionality are shamed, instead of the other way around. This is fact, it's become a culture in schools.
"What, you wouldn't bang Pamela Anderson? Are you gay?"
"What, you wouldn't test drive your girlfriend before marrying her? Are you a religious fundamentalist nutcase?"
This is very real and it's happening everywhere. And it's the reason why I understand that some people think pornogaphy is harmful to our children, because they think pornography has caused this (which it definitely has not, but that's missing the point).
When degenerates rule society and the nuclear family falls apart, the nation inevitably falls apart with it.
@Monstrous Moonshine how could people possibly live without taking a shit?
the black's greatest technological achievement
@snake As to what you said about the uneven ratio of men to women that's required to keep the species going. I'd add that it's only in regards to pure survival, whereas when a society starts to thrive the behavior of people starts to change dramatically. It is actually a sign of progress when conservative values like a traditional family structure can be promoted, because only in a stable civilization is that even possible. Basically it's only possible when there are no wars, and that's why people who want stability, prosperity and their own family have a strong incentive to create peace or at least a stalemate between nations and tribes.
In other words, "progressive"-minded people who promote polyamory are the true barbarians.
Not only is that undesirable in and of itself, but it also creates more turmoil, as (mainly) men become frustrated, but eventually many women, too.
@Thundermark How is an "open relationship" a conservative concept? I am confusion <:smugon:512048583806025739>
mfw the standard for being based is that of being uncucked <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
open house is not how it works either
<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>
Seesh, why so defensive about your open relationships? It already sounds like you’re not having a fun time with them.
Plus, I’d like to see the response to my other points because that was my weakest.
But all you do here is **declare** that I’m wrong, but why am I wrong? The name is a *open* relationship, surely any man your gf brings in is allowed
“/sigh
I tried.
There's literally *zero* incentive to me wasting any more time arguing w/ ppl who have already made up their minds based on a fallacious preconceived notion & are not willing to so much as *listen.*”
Ok then don’t respond, you’ve quit, we’re done, stop typing.
what were you expecting, people to embrace the ideal of polyamory?
Dude just make your point and argument in a precise way, please stop sperging
This is interesting
instill the virtues of why I should be letting other guys drill my wife
A closed polyamorous relationship is not an open relationship
Imagine calling an international market that's closed off to other markets an open market. No, it's a single market, not an open market.
“no, I'm done wasting my time on the willfully ignorant” then please stop typing here if you quit, we got other debates
> In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. **They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.**
- Hans Hermann Hoppe
The owner of a subreddit entirely dedicated towards bashing Libertarianism cites a Libertarian philosopher
We are reaching levels of big brain that shouldn't be possible
I'm curious of your actual argument of why I should be accepting of polyamory