Religious & Morality Spergging of the Catboy Covenant - Debate the most autistic points of Nick & Friends ethics and morality

[Tom Myers]

Here's Nick saying that the Roe v Wade decision is like a "Good Taliban".

 

[Bioniclelover]

Here's Nick saying that the Roe v Wade decision is like a "Good Taliban".


nick-roe.mp4

this is just embarassing

also i am pretty sure Nick would never have been conceived under Taliban rule since they oppose in vitro

 

[Rosy Reptile]

@Uberpenguin i bible spergged because AF uses Christianity. I gave a Christian defense of women even though I myself am not Christian. I'm basically using their own spergging against them. I'm aware the bible was written for a bronze age society as a "how to" guide for people on how to live. Why banish a mensturating woman from the main house? Blood getting everywhere is bad for cleanliness and even ancient peoples got this as they understood those who lived by human waste got sicker more easily . Secondly, many tribes globally practiced allowing women who were mensturating to have their own hut to spiritually reflect/ hang out with other women/ sing/not labor/etc. I'm of mind to believe that this could have been the same in this region of the world. But I'm an optimist.

I'm sorry but even if I wasn't gay I wouldn't sleep with you. I have always had self respect and I know many women who are hetero who have it as well.

You should have a Snickers tho, you're getting very MATI.


@Rosy Reptile

Read above.

Women make and raise every human. The voice of ones mother in the womb influences what is held within.

There was also a common practice in Roman times since women couldn't "rule" that a literal woman would be behind the curtain (usually mom or wife) telling her male mouthpiece what to say. This also happened in China as well as Japan. And if you think every grand idea can ever be attributed to a man who confided in his wife you're wrong, Einstein's wife determined his theory of relativity because she was present at every mathsperg dinner and left college to support his ass (he put her on the patent and said as much so when he later ran for deadbeat dad of the year in America she had every right to sue him and win) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg hand typed all her husband's law notes for classes/all his papers when he had cancer to ensure he passed his classes and graduate. Theodora saved Byzantium during Nika riots and Wu Zeitain had the second longest reigning dynasty which only shows that letting a woman do it directly makes more sense than having them whisper in an Emperor's ear. (her 50 year reign was second only to first Emperor of China) Asking for women to stop using their mouthpieces or to take credit for their societal influence in an egalitarian fashion isn't "unnatural" it's unironically "cutting out the middle man".

As to the main question.... Where do I get my power from on the forum? Men weren't alone in creating computing or the internet or even the kiwi of farms. There were important female coders /sitefags but even more fundamentally these men did not wipe their own arses from birth, take themselves to school, nor did they cook their own meals or learn about the world in a vacuum like many would like to pretend. Men who were "great" often had someone to worry about daily life for them so they could be "great" and the watcher of all of this was the woman. Example:

Thoreau spent his days LARPING in a cabin in the woods but failed to mention he had someone to do his laundry, cook his food, clean his shit up. He was only allowed to be "his own man" because his mother did everything for him. This is America First incarnate and basically the fundamental issue of why all men aren't all as great as they think they are.

So yes, I do get my power from a woman even if it's indirectly through the fundamental raising and care of the autistic overlord. Our dear feeder didn't just appear in a vacuum as an effigy full guns and ammo ready for saving internet bullying one forum at a time.

It seems like you're both attacking a strawman and moving the goalposts at the same time, but maybe I was just unclear.


For the strawman, I never said that women never have an active role in building power hierarchies, or inventing new things. I'm just saying that it's unusual. I'm not ignorant of the fact that there have been female leaders and geniuses.

I'm also aware that they have contributions other than that, and that are just as important. That's where your moving of the goalposts comes in. I specifically said women aren't (normally) conquerors. That means direct hierarchical institutional power. What it doesn't mean is soft power, which is the area where women excel. Giving birth to and raising Alexander the Great is not the same as conquering Persia and establishing the Macedonian empire. Because men are (normatively) the conquerors, they are the ones building power hierarchies. That means that women are going to end up naturally in subservient or middle management (or moderator, and I do say that just to get under your skin a bit) positions.

There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not something that needs to be corrected. If there's anti-meritocratic roadblocks keeping those rare female creative geniuses out? Then of course those need to be removed. But that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about social norms that are in place, for a large part, to make sure the lowest common denominator of the female psyche doesn't dominate and gum up society. That's what happens if you, democratically, give them all hard power as well as the soft power that they've already got. They use it to accumulate even more crazy levels of soft power that weren't accessible before. At least with men (who you shouldn't democratize either) they're typically just going to use hard power to get more hard power, so there's a way for women to balance them.

At least that's how it was before women got so much power that a lot of men started catching on, and wore wigs and started grabbing up soft power for themselves. Now men are just as big of monsters as women are. That's a big part of what the trans movement is. Are you happy now? When women get hard power through soft power (feminism), men start taking soft power through hard power (trans). Everyone's miserable.

 

[BoxerShorts47]

There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not something that needs to be corrected. If there's anti-meritocratic roadblocks keeping those rare female creative geniuses out? Then of course those need to be removed. But that's not what we're talking about.

But that's still justified because the avg result would be a net positive.

 

[Rosy Reptile]

But that's still justified because the avg result would be a net positive.

I'm advocating for a philo-meritocratic, anti-democratic approach to female upwards mobility. I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

 

[Meiwaku]

Wu Zetian? You mean that old woman who ordered her husband emperor to kill his own son from the other wife and later as a ruling monarch had her own son killed as well as her own grandson and granddaughter to commit suicide for criticizing her blatant favoritism of her lovers? I don't really see what you are trying to prove here.

I don't actually have anything else to say in regards to the rest of your post.

I know men get big mad about her which is why I use her as an example because literally every Chinese emperor ever has done way worse if not the exact same thing. This is in contrast to me mentioning literally any other emperor who was just as accomplished as she was. She only gets picked on because she's a woman. There's a literally no other reason. She can't be accomplished or celebrated or even abhored equally without all of her flaws being pointed out because she's female.

That's my point. Men sneeding.

@Rosy Reptile said:
those rare female creative geniuses

Now men are just as big of monsters as women are

Please say sike.

 

[Bioniclelover]

I know men get big mad about her which is why I use her as an example because literally every Chinese emperor ever has done way worse if not the exact same thing. This is in contrast to me mentioning literally any other emperor who was just as accomplished as she was. She only gets picked on because she's a woman. There's a literally no other reason. She can't be accomplished or celebrated or even abhored equally without all of her flaws being pointed out because she's female.

That's my point. Men sneeding.

So your point is that women can be as cruel as men? Well i guess you won.
I am aware that the chinese chroniclers used her as an argument to never have a female ruler again but that is beside my point, I only objected to using person who have on multiple occassions had their own progeny executed as GURL POWAH moment.
If you want to claim that to argue that all chinese emperors were like that or worse, feel free to make a list of remaining Tang emperors doing stuff on similar level. I haven't studied chinese history in few years so I don't remember every single emperor.
I don't actually care too much about her sex. I just generally have very low opinion on monarchs who had their own children or descendants killed like Suleiman the Magnificent or Peter the Great, even if they are considered national heroes or nationbuilders in their countries.

Trying to get back on general thread topic, I don't get the incel/mgtow movement. If you claim that women are stupider or more evil than men, doesn't that suggest that you hate your own mother? The only conclusion I can make from this is that people like that hate women because they weren't loved by their mommies as little kids.

 

[Israellover1234]

If they want to be based and redpilled, why don't they just become fundamentalist mormons?

They don't allow blacks as priests, they are highly intolerant of minorities, are highly in-group focussed, allow multiple wives, have many children (no contraception), mostly live very traditionally and they are tolerated by the US-state.

Is it because they're not really interested in solutions and just want to holler at their screen while playing minecraft?

 

[Rosy Reptile]

I know men get big mad about her which is why I use her as an example because literally every Chinese emperor ever has done way worse if not the exact same thing. This is in contrast to me mentioning literally any other emperor who was just as accomplished as she was. She only gets picked on because she's a woman. There's a literally no other reason. She can't be accomplished or celebrated or even abhored equally without all of her flaws being pointed out because she's female.

That's my point. Men sneeding.

Please say sike.

Women have a flatter bell curve than men. Fewer geniuses, fewer idiots. If you even bother responding to this, you're going to point out specific counterexamples as though that disproves the trend, just like you did with female rulers. The Irish have an average IQ of 90 or something, Does that mean they can't have some American presidents? Of course not. The only people who are unwilling to admit that trends like these exist are the ones who aren't the exceptions and their pride can't handle it. This is getting off of the thread topic though, I think.

If they want to be based and redpilled, why don't they just become fundamentalist mormons?

They don't allow blacks as priests, they are highly intolerant of minorities, are highly in-group focussed, allow multiple wives, have many children (no contraception), mostly live very traditionally and they are tolerated by the US-state.

Is it because they're not really interested in solutions and just want to holler at their screen while playing minecraft?

You can't groom well-intentioned young men effectively if your religion isn't at least feasibly maybe legitimate. Rome can fool people, Joseph Smith can't

 

[Israellover1234]

You can't groom well-intentioned young men effectively if your religion isn't at least feasibly maybe legitimate. Rome can fool people, Joseph Smith can't

I'd wager theres enough well intentioned young men in Utah.

 

[AMHOLIO]

I am also unsure but are all Christians just inherently a bit retarded when it comes to hearing someone else say they're a Christian and then auto believing them?

I'm late, but take my guessing anyway.

If a Christian goes to church, they're surrounded by other people who think similarly and show their faith. Sometimes, they'll meet a new person, hear "Christian", and have their brain immediately associate things from their tribe to them. It happens if someone tells you they're the same ethnicity as you or other tribal indicators.

If you're talking more lukewarm faith, it's because there's a lot of Christians who van be lukewarm in faith. Some do it to carry family tradition, some do it for company, the worst are like troon mods who crave power but aren't that useful. It's not all bad, but it is something to think about.

Christians are a faith that encourages forgiveness and to see the good in everybody. Occasionally, they can be too optimistic for their own good.

Lastly, it's hearing someone say they're a republican, a wiccan, a model train enthusiast, a competive video game player, etc.. Maybe you'd express doubt at the first two since there's so many types of republican that fight with each other and wiccan is a lolcow religion, but why would they lie about any of these things? Someone declaring something usually means they are something until proven otherwise because most people can't be assed to lie. The no true Scotsman you speak of is a gatekeeping, a form of "you must be this serious to pass", which (unlike what internet tards say) isn't a bad thing, you just want actually dedicated people. Some Christians don't even realize they're not as dedicated as they'd like to think.

You can't groom well-intentioned young men effectively if your religion isn't at least feasibly maybe legitimate. Rome can fool people, Joseph Smith can't

Mormons tend to gain new followers by preaching and marriage. If no young temple girl comes to your door to tell you about her religion then you're not getting a young man to convert. Hell, this implies that they would get up from their computer screen to answer the door.

 

[Meiwaku]

Women have a flatter bell curve than men. Fewer geniuses, fewer idiots. If you even bother responding to this, you're going to point out specific counterexamples as though that disproves the trend, just like you did with female rulers. The Irish have an average IQ of 90 or something, Does that mean they can't have some American presidents? Of course not. The only people who are unwilling to admit that trends like these exist are the ones who aren't the exceptions and their pride can't handle it. This is getting off of the thread topic though, I think.

You said "creative genius". Creativity, Soft Skills (this actually has separate skill test and surprise women outrank men on all but one of them, this is actually what many job skills tests in the states are going for because it's people management skills) , and other intelligences aren't able to be tracked on a Woodcock Johnson or Weschler IQ Tests. Mensa doesn't track for if you can create beautiful paintings, performing violin solos for orchestral compositions, lead political movements, etc. It's qualitative and quantitative/ visual spacial reasoning skills iirc.

I'm not denying the 1920 study (iirc this was the first one) on the bell curve nor the modern ones that more or less rephrase the hypothesis. I agree that even with this deviation accounted for the IQ differences of men range from between 3-5 points higher or lower. This wasn't my argument. It was that you said "creative geniuses". But, I could also argue that this small of a deviation in IQ means It's negligible at best. All IQ tests have a standard deviation score and while I believe these studies have accounted for it. The long and short of it is cognitive reasoning skills of someone with a 100iq and someone with a 104iq aren't terribly different. Nor is someone with a 144 or 148 score. The only time things like this might matter is if they are skirting the line of retardation

More women graduate highschool and go to college and finish college, and now more women are getting post graduate degrees than men. They also make better grades.
This is not some fluke example. This is saying women are more capable than men have historically given them credit for and giving in America that you (if you're a boomer) or your own mother could have been the first woman to graduate with a degree any particular college (as the big boys didn't all open gates at the same time), that's highly impressive. In b4 college lib spergging..

Only one of the Fuentes is going to have. A degree, likely a post graduate degree/lisence, and actual chance in mainstream politics and it's not Nick.

Basically saying "muh natural laws" or "muh bible" or "muh gender roles" (gender isn't even real and was invented by a pedo and something trannies love is usually wrong) as an excuse to discredit that women are every bit just as capable as men to do the exact same thing if not more so in some cases is just male feed & seed. Biological differences=\= women are lesser or deserves less human rights nickfags are salty women vote and he's slaty his sister is more successful than him especially in a modern era.

If you want to claim that to argue that all chinese emperors were like that or worse, feel free to make a list of remaining Tang emperors doing stuff on similar level. I haven't studied chinese history in few years so I don't remember every single emperor.

If you want to learn in good faith I will give you a list of every Emperor from Tang to Qing who made similar if not worse "whoopsies"... An example was a terribly cruel and gluttonous war lord who claimed the position of emperor named Dong Zhuo one who was so hated his deathfat body had a wick put in his stomach and was burned in the street by angry insurrectionists for many days because he was so fat.

Also most emperors in Chinese history only lasted a few years at best.

I don't actually care too much about her sex. I just generally have very low opinion on monarchs who had their own children or descendants killed like Suleiman the Magnificent or Peter the Great, even if they are considered national heroes or nationbuilders in their countries.

That's a valid argument and I can agree with it.

The one I made was basically for normies who soy face over Genghis khan or Alexander and then reeeee over the mention of Wu.

Lastly, it's hearing someone say they're a republican, a wiccan, a model train enthusiast, a competive video game player, etc.. Maybe you'd express doubt at the first two since there's so many types of republican that fight with each other and wiccan is a lolcow religion, but why would they lie about any of these things? Someone declaring something usually means they are something until proven otherwise because most people can't be assed to lie.

The no true Scotsman you speak of is a gatekeeping, a form of "you must be this serious to pass", which (unlike what internet tards say) isn't a bad thing, you just want actually dedicated people.

Really good take. I think since Christianity is more organized than Wicca, so people get more uppity.

As much as genderfags want to say "gender is a spectrum" in truth, Christianity is a spectrum because the bar for many denominations is very low. So low that "do you believe in jesus/
god is your savior" is basically good enough.

So, if Nickleback meets the bare minimum for Catholicism in his beliefs, then he is a Christian. Maybe not a very good one, but he still is. Something something you're not supposed to cast judgement in terms of christfag on christfag but I'm not a god stan so I can.

There was a saying I heard that goes like this that basically summarizes these godspergs well:
"I love the Lord it's just those darn Christians I don't like"

 

[Tornado]

Reviving because I have not been on in a long time, and thought this extended diatribe was out of line.

[Female nonsense]

Your fundamental problem lies not in this study or that fact or whatever rhetorical device suits your momentary need. You fit into a class of envy that many have observed in the poor: they often hate the rich not because they see their behavior as unethical, but because they are not afforded the opportunity to exert the same kind of unethical behavior. You constantly refrain back to this attempt to elevate women above men, e.g. "Women are actually just as good as men in X, and in fact Y study says that women are in fact better than men in that regard!" It's an uninteresting and transparent reversal that only ever looks like a contemptuous and childish "no u" that goes unaddressed in the same way that a kid lying about meeting a pixie in the garden goes ignored, because it's not worth the time.

Unfortunately you also bring Christianity into this, which betrays a foundational ignorance and assumes some kind of familiarity inappropriately. I have my problems with online trads who argue so badly they in fact weaken the position of traditional values and Apostolic Christian Churches in rhetoric. However that is no way an excuse for your playing pretend as if you know anything about the Church or about proper Christian life. Nominal Prots raise the worst kids because they often get divorced and have no attachment to a church, which turns what in a truly religious life serves as the central reality of all things into a sort of folk tale with no purpose. I imagine the same holds true in your case.

 

[Autism Speaks]

Here's a great clip of Nick calling Pope Francis a heretic:

Does he not understand papal infallibility? It's only one of the defining features of Catholicism as a "denomination." Devout Catholics believe Christ instituted the Catholic Church and guaranteed it for all time. If you disagree with any of its doctrines, then you disagree with this fundamental premise as well. So when Nick regards the pope's words as anything but unequivocally true, he necessarily rejects this guarantee, at which point he shouldn't consider himself Catholic (and neither should anyone else). "The office of the papacy is still what I respect, but this pope is a heretic." - Nick Fuentes (a Catholic)
America First's claim to Catholicism was always baseless, given their faggotry. Still, the retardation of Nick and his self-proclaimed minions amazes me. How could you not learn the very basics of your supposed religion to avoid such obvious contradictions? At least pretend to care.

 

[Big Fat Retard]

Here's a great clip of Nick calling Pope Francis a heretic:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kgIOKO3Av5sDoes he not understand papal infallibility? It's only one of the defining features of Catholicism as a "denomination." Devout Catholics believe Christ instituted the Catholic Church and guaranteed it for all time. If you disagree with any of its doctrines, then you disagree with this fundamental premise as well. So when Nick regards the pope's words as anything but unequivocally true, he necessarily rejects this guarantee, at which point he shouldn't consider himself Catholic (and neither should anyone else). "The office of the papacy is still what I respect, but this pope is a heretic." - Nick Fuentes (a Catholic)
America First's claim to Catholicism was always baseless, given their faggotry. Still, the retardation of Nick and his self-proclaimed minions amazes me. How could you not learn the very basics of your supposed religion to avoid such obvious contradictions? At least pretend to care.

If Nick is going to pretend to be religious then he might as well just pretend to be a sedevancatist at this point.

 

[Tornado]

Here's a great clip of Nick calling Pope Francis a heretic:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kgIOKO3Av5sDoes he not understand papal infallibility? It's only one of the defining features of Catholicism as a "denomination." Devout Catholics believe Christ instituted the Catholic Church and guaranteed it for all time. If you disagree with any of its doctrines, then you disagree with this fundamental premise as well. So when Nick regards the pope's words as anything but unequivocally true, he necessarily rejects this guarantee, at which point he shouldn't consider himself Catholic (and neither should anyone else). "The office of the papacy is still what I respect, but this pope is a heretic." - Nick Fuentes (a Catholic)
America First's claim to Catholicism was always baseless, given their faggotry. Still, the retardation of Nick and his self-proclaimed minions amazes me. How could you not learn the very basics of your supposed religion to avoid such obvious contradictions? At least pretend to care.

He’s wrong to call the Pope a heretic because he wouldn't know heresy from leprosy and has no footing to reject the Pope. The Pope has also expressed some things which border on illicit. Yet that doesn’t exclude the fact you don’t understand papal infallibility, which is that the Pope can’t bind the Church to error when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. It doesn’t mean everything the Pope says is normative and fully representative of the faith, it also doesn’t mean he can’t err in a variety of ways. He just can’t make specific errors.

 

[Rosy Reptile]

I can't seem to reply to the Meiwaku post. Sorry it took so long to respond, productivity applications etc. If men and women are closer in ability than I thought, neat.

He’s wrong to call the Pope a heretic because he wouldn't know heresy from leprosy and has no footing to reject the Pope. The Pope has also expressed some things which border on illicit. Yet that doesn’t exclude the fact you don’t understand papal infallibility, which is that the Pope can’t bind the Church to error when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. It doesn’t mean everything the Pope says is normative and fully representative of the faith, it also doesn’t mean he can’t err in a variety of ways. He just can’t make specific errors.

Didn't watch the nick video but how does Frank being a heretic have anything to do with infallibility? If an ex cathedra statement were required to be a heretic, then only the pope could be a heretic. The man has pagan idols in the Vatican and is building an Abrahamic Faith Center with the Muslims (when he's not praying in their mosques). Half the things he does count as apostasy under trad Catholic doctrine. The pope isn't just supposed to be infallible, he's also supposed to be indefectible. The man is an apostate. I'm more of a Roman Catholic than Frank is and you know it.

I know that you think that without the Pope there's no way to be sure about doctrine, or anything else by extension. It's not the case, though. We don't need the Pope to know doctrine anymore than we need the Pope to know that 1 + 1 = 2. The Eucharist is Christ's body, not Franks. The mind we enter into to have knowledge is Christ's mind.

 

[Big Al's Famous Pork]

I grew up in a Catholic family and most of my education was in Catholic schools. I genuinely view people like Fuentes and @Rosy Reptile as weirdo navel gazing LARPers that have lost sight of the main point of being a Catholic: breeding. Both are way too big of faggots to do this one job.

 

[Rosy Reptile]

I grew up in a Catholic family and most of my education was in Catholic schools. I genuinely view people like Fuentes and @Rosy Reptile as weirdo navel gazing LARPers that have lost sight of the main point of being a Catholic: breeding. Both are way too big of faggots to do this one job.

I'm not a Roman Catholic.

 

[Big Al's Famous Pork]

I'm not a Roman Catholic.

Oh, I know.