Where Should the Next War be Staged ?

[Sy Borg]

Dictatorships will be eliminated eventually though. Democracy will rule supreme then, but still only there as a precursor to the coming ultimate dictatorship, feminist rule.

The strong man dictator as a useful leader applied about 80 years ago but is now a destructive myth. Since dictators don't like bad news, they end up being surrounded by yes men and making insane decisions that seriously harm their nations like invading Ukraine or killing off all the sparrows and causing a famine. Every nation headed by a strong man dictator has become weak, while he personally became stronger. Russia, for instance, was far stronger before Putin.

Unfortunately, dictators with powerful AI technology will remain entrenched and will not ever be removed. They will be protected from their inherent stupidity and pig-headedness by intelligent technology.

It has never been more important to ensure that such characters are never elected because, with help from hi-tech, that's a fast track to a dysfunctional monarchy that can be maintained indefinitely a la North Korea.

Now is the time to tell "strong man" leaders NO, they will not be allowed to parasitise their nations as did Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan. Xi, by contrast, has only recently moved to a strongman stance, previously being a committee man. If Xi goes down that path, watch China's infrastructure die of at rapid pace as shortcuts and dodgy construction practices break down.

While I think it important to avoid handing the permanent keys of power to a strongman, as many in the US are ready to do, it appears most likely that the strongman myth will see the end of democracy and freedom as a social constructs for all time. Those ideas were, most likely, just a blip anyway. A desirable blip, but always doomed.

My advice to all is don't be too attached to what freedoms you have, because they are going to be taken away by political strongmen to allow themselves for freedom.

[Gregory A]

Dictatorships will be eliminated eventually though. Democracy will rule supreme then, but still only there as a precursor to the coming ultimate dictatorship, feminist rule.

The strong man dictator as a useful leader applied about 80 years ago but is now a destructive myth. Since dictators don't like bad news, they end up being surrounded by yes men and making insane decisions that seriously harm their nations like invading Ukraine or killing off all the sparrows and causing a famine. Every nation headed by a strong man dictator has become weak, while he personally became stronger. Russia, for instance, was far stronger before Putin.

Unfortunately, dictators with powerful AI technology will remain entrenched and will not ever be removed. They will be protected from their inherent stupidity and pig-headedness by intelligent technology.

It has never been more important to ensure that such characters are never elected because, with help from hi-tech, that's a fast track to a dysfunctional monarchy that can be maintained indefinitely a la North Korea.

Now is the time to tell "strong man" leaders NO, they will not be allowed to parasitise their nations as did Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan. Xi, by contrast, has only recently moved to a strongman stance, previously being a committee man. If Xi goes down that path, watch China's infrastructure die of at rapid pace as shortcuts and dodgy construction practices break down.

While I think it important to avoid handing the permanent keys of power to a strongman, as many in the US are ready to do, it appears most likely that the strongman myth will see the end of democracy and freedom as a social constructs for all time. Those ideas were, most likely, just a blip anyway. A desirable blip, but always doomed.

My advice to all is don't be too attached to what freedoms you have, because they are going to be taken away by political strongmen to allow themselves for freedom.

It worries me that someone who has taken so much more interest in this than myself can come up with the prediction of a near opposite outcome to what I predict. I could say that conceivably I've had 61 years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them, those time factors making your position weaker. But as you do know a lot more about the details involved, that won't work at all. But still being good with one thing does not make someone necessarily good at another. I have my understandings, not a lot of detail, but still supported by the current trends. For example: Within three elections, in every democracy in the world, feminism, an unelected ideology, will take control. In the UK, the USA and other english speaking nations, feminism is now already set to take over. The increase in elected women, feminists in women's clothing soon becoming an unstoppable force without there being modifications to the democratic election processes, that is. But this won't happen because politicians just have no idea. To be elected by the people they need to appeal to the people, a further dumbing-down needed. It is for the thinking people, the philosophers supposedly, to make a stand and force these changes before it's too late.


And my advice to half the population is don't be too attached to the life you have, because it's going to be taken away from you by political strongwomen to allow for themselves freedom to take control of the other half of the population.

[Sy Borg]

Dictatorships will be eliminated eventually though. Democracy will rule supreme then, but still only there as a precursor to the coming ultimate dictatorship, feminist rule.

The strong man dictator as a useful leader applied about 80 years ago but is now a destructive myth. Since dictators don't like bad news, they end up being surrounded by yes men and making insane decisions that seriously harm their nations like invading Ukraine or killing off all the sparrows and causing a famine. Every nation headed by a strong man dictator has become weak, while he personally became stronger. Russia, for instance, was far stronger before Putin.

Unfortunately, dictators with powerful AI technology will remain entrenched and will not ever be removed. They will be protected from their inherent stupidity and pig-headedness by intelligent technology.

It has never been more important to ensure that such characters are never elected because, with help from hi-tech, that's a fast track to a dysfunctional monarchy that can be maintained indefinitely a la North Korea.

Now is the time to tell "strong man" leaders NO, they will not be allowed to parasitise their nations as did Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan. Xi, by contrast, has only recently moved to a strongman stance, previously being a committee man. If Xi goes down that path, watch China's infrastructure die of at rapid pace as shortcuts and dodgy construction practices break down.

While I think it important to avoid handing the permanent keys of power to a strongman, as many in the US are ready to do, it appears most likely that the strongman myth will see the end of democracy and freedom as a social constructs for all time. Those ideas were, most likely, just a blip anyway. A desirable blip, but always doomed.

My advice to all is don't be too attached to what freedoms you have, because they are going to be taken away by political strongmen to allow themselves for freedom.

It worries me that someone who has taken so much more interest in this than myself can come up with the prediction of a near opposite outcome to what I predict. I could say that conceivably I've had 61 years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them, those time factors making your position weaker.

I have had a little more time than you to come to my conclusions. I am long retired and think about the world a great deal.

For example: Within three elections, in every democracy in the world, feminism, an unelected ideology, will take control. In the UK, the USA and other english speaking nations, feminism is now already set to take over. The increase in elected women, feminists in women's clothing soon becoming an unstoppable force without there being modifications to the democratic election processes, that is.

Zero chance of that happening. There will be an increase in representation, and in some places it may reach 50%, but most won't even come close. Money brings power, and fewer than 12% of billionaires in the US are female. And zero percent of Presidents have been female. Asia and Africa are still deeply patriarchal. Europe seems fairly balanced in that regard these days. Australia once had a female PM and she was smashed by the media every day until the party was forced to replace her with a man, after which the media calmed down. As it turns out, she had the best legislative output of any recent PMs, but Australia was not ready to give that power to a woman and reverted to patriarchal safety.

The problem for men today is at the other end of society, where women closer to the bottom of the heap than the top seem to be out-competing their male peers. However, the overall power structures are not only stable, but reactionary, as evidenced by women's recent loss of the most basic rights in Texas.

[Gregory A]

Dictatorships will be eliminated eventually though. Democracy will rule supreme then, but still only there as a precursor to the coming ultimate dictatorship, feminist rule.

The strong man dictator as a useful leader applied about 80 years ago but is now a destructive myth. Since dictators don't like bad news, they end up being surrounded by yes men and making insane decisions that seriously harm their nations like invading Ukraine or killing off all the sparrows and causing a famine. Every nation headed by a strong man dictator has become weak, while he personally became stronger. Russia, for instance, was far stronger before Putin.

Unfortunately, dictators with powerful AI technology will remain entrenched and will not ever be removed. They will be protected from their inherent stupidity and pig-headedness by intelligent technology.

It has never been more important to ensure that such characters are never elected because, with help from hi-tech, that's a fast track to a dysfunctional monarchy that can be maintained indefinitely a la North Korea.

Now is the time to tell "strong man" leaders NO, they will not be allowed to parasitise their nations as did Putin, Bolsonaro, Orban and Erdogan. Xi, by contrast, has only recently moved to a strongman stance, previously being a committee man. If Xi goes down that path, watch China's infrastructure die of at rapid pace as shortcuts and dodgy construction practices break down.

While I think it important to avoid handing the permanent keys of power to a strongman, as many in the US are ready to do, it appears most likely that the strongman myth will see the end of democracy and freedom as a social constructs for all time. Those ideas were, most likely, just a blip anyway. A desirable blip, but always doomed.

My advice to all is don't be too attached to what freedoms you have, because they are going to be taken away by political strongmen to allow themselves for freedom.

It worries me that someone who has taken so much more interest in this than myself can come up with the prediction of a near opposite outcome to what I predict. I could say that conceivably I've had 61 years to come to my conclusions whereas presumably you've only had a few hours to dismiss them, those time factors making your position weaker.

I have had a little more time than you to come to my conclusions. I am long retired and think about the world a great deal.

You have obviously been thinking about the world a lot during this time but is that while looking at it through the rainbow shades that soft lifestyles provide. What I"m saying is humanism, a branch of Christianity (but without its patriarchal leaders) is becoming the predominant religion. Consequently this combined with an emerging primal generation who know nothing of world war, nuclear bombings, etc. having faith that everything will work out okay. Something that's completely at odds with Nature and history.

For example: Within three elections, in every democracy in the world, feminism, an unelected ideology, will take control. In the UK, the USA and other english speaking nations, feminism is now already set to take over. The increase in elected women, feminists in women's clothing soon becoming an unstoppable force without there being modifications to the democratic election processes, that is.

Zero chance of that happening. There will be an increase in representation, and in some places it may reach 50%, but most won't even come close. Money brings power, and fewer than 12% of billionaires in the US are female. And zero percent of Presidents have been female. Asia and Africa are still deeply patriarchal. Europe seems fairly balanced in that regard these days. Australia once had a female PM and she was smashed by the media every day until the party was forced to replace her with a man, after which the media calmed down. As it turns out, she had the best legislative output of any recent PMs, but Australia was not ready to give that power to a woman and reverted to patriarchal safety.

The problem for men today is at the other end of society, where women closer to the bottom of the heap than the top seem to be out-competing their male peers. However, the overall power structures are not only stable, but reactionary, as evidenced by women's recent loss of the most basic rights in Texas.

Not only will feminist control happen it is inevitable and will be complete. In some places representation will reach 50% at the next election, many others coming close to that. Money bringing power is not saying money leads to power. And, the point is lost as there have been fewer billionaire candidates than there have been female candidates. Zero percent female presidents, yet one of only few female presidential candidates coming close to winning. Those statistics show that a female candidate has far more chance of becoming President than does a male from that same position. Asia and Africa are deeply patriarchal for now. Still the hardest of patriarchies are set to fall. Naural attrition, the main enemy of conservatism, taking care of patriarchs everywhere. A ministerial system of government does not allow the public to elect any minister including PM. The 'swing vote' does however allow a way in which an individual leadership candidate does win though. Making theirs (swing voters) an objective decision as they do by not being bound foolishly to either socialism's or capitalism's political representations. Australia has a 51% female Senate, 31% female membership in the house of reps. The latter I figure approaching close to the half mark next election (due in just over one month). My prediction made some 10 years back that Australia, a matriarchy in effect for most of its time, will be the first nation to surrender to feminist rule. A vulnerability in the Democratic Election Process allowing this to proceed. Democracy as we know it is fair, but that may be all it is. We, half of the voters at most, despite not being in any real way qualified get to decide a political party or a businessman, lawyer etc candidate, who will make decisions on issues they know nothing of. Women do outcompete their male peers, but that's when it comes to being put in positions of authority, rather than on their actual performances. Women will continue to be pushed up, part of our primal nature to put the child-bearer first. Primitivism taking hold with every new generation, born naked and deprived of past values. Conservatism a victim of the soft lifestyles the new age allows, natural attrition slashing its numbers. There have been female leaders in the past, but they got to those positions on merit. Margaret Thacher was not voted in because she was a woman, but because she had what it takes to be a leader

[Sy Borg]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

[Gregory A]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

[LuckyR]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

Pointing out that a group that has historically been excluded artificially, who is now increasing their influence towards their statistical representation, and perhaps meeting it, is a valid observation. Concluding that this statistical improvement will magically continue well beyond a group's statistical representation without an external force to explain it, is illogical.

The same illogical argument could be used to declare that the US will be dominated by racial minorities in the near future.

[Sy Borg]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

Pointing out that a group that has historically been excluded artificially, who is now increasing their influence towards their statistical representation, and perhaps meeting it, is a valid observation. Concluding that this statistical improvement will magically continue well beyond a group's statistical representation without an external force to explain it, is illogical.

The same illogical argument could be used to declare that the US will be dominated by racial minorities in the near future.

Correct. He is doubling down on his slippery slope fallacy.

There are certainly some social issues for young men who are not rich in the changing milieu, although this has always been a troubled demographic.

[Gregory A]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

Pointing out that a group that has historically been excluded artificially, who is now increasing their influence towards their statistical representation, and perhaps meeting it, is a valid observation. Concluding that this statistical improvement will magically continue well beyond a group's statistical representation without an external force to explain it, is illogical.

The same illogical argument could be used to declare that the US will be dominated by racial minorities in the near future.

You are promising a smooth flight with a safe landing when the weather should be telling you the opposite is true. I was going to demonstrate what is actually happening by applying the 'swiss cheese model' to this oncoming catastrophic supersession process but realized there are not a lot of layers of safety there at all.

Your outlook appears so naive that I need to believe your god is superior to mine. Of course you don't believe in a god, further undermining your faith that everything will all work out.

A liberal outlook has led you into a minefield that you'd better back out of before being in too deep. Your fairytale with its fairytale ending will most certainly not happen. The elimination of all males now an inevetable outcome. A gendercide set in motion at a primal level.

The US couldn't be dominated by any racial minority. Females are half the population there is no comparison to be had there.

[Sy Borg]

Make that tripling.

Logical fallacy: slippery slope
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

In this instance A = women's rights and Z = total matriarchal domination.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

[LuckyR]

I worked hard on that post for a quick dismissal and repetition of your previous points. Thanks for playing.

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

Pointing out that a group that has historically been excluded artificially, who is now increasing their influence towards their statistical representation, and perhaps meeting it, is a valid observation. Concluding that this statistical improvement will magically continue well beyond a group's statistical representation without an external force to explain it, is illogical.

The same illogical argument could be used to declare that the US will be dominated by racial minorities in the near future.

You are promising a smooth flight with a safe landing when the weather should be telling you the opposite is true. I was going to demonstrate what is actually happening by applying the 'swiss cheese model' to this oncoming catastrophic supersession process but realized there are not a lot of layers of safety there at all.

Your outlook appears so naive that I need to believe your god is superior to mine. Of course you don't believe in a god, further undermining your faith that everything will all work out.

A liberal outlook has led you into a minefield that you'd better back out of before being in too deep. Your fairytale with its fairytale ending will most certainly not happen. The elimination of all males now an inevetable outcome. A gendercide set in motion at a primal level.

The US couldn't be dominated by any racial minority. Females are half the population there is no comparison to be had there.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bluster is not evidence.

[Gregory A]

This is not just entertainment to me. I'd refuted all that you'd said. My particular take on this situation is serious. Part of my website is devoted to these things and are there as a warning of the coming gendercide. And what chance for humanity if people like me turn out to be right. Backing up my beliefs is that people at these types of forums behave predictably, some just want to post responses to what they believe is wrong, but back away from posting to what they have trouble understanding (determinism in action?). Philosophical discussions attract academic people who by default are representatives of the Left (determinism again?). So, I'm here with a message no one really wants to hear. I'll keep trying but then be on my way leaving you to indulge yourself.

And admittedly I didn't need to work all that hard dismissing what you said. As what you say is some of the most commonly used rhetoric that there is out there.

One last point as it is obvious you did not read my reply properly. The point unavoidable now standing out on its own as it does:

In the last 10 years there have been four serious female contenders for the US Presidency. Only four, yet out of these one got more votes than her opponent the elected President Donald Trump did. This FACT easily dismisses your claim that women don't have much chance of being in top jobs. They in fact have far more chance on average of being elected to the top job than men do.

Pointing out that a group that has historically been excluded artificially, who is now increasing their influence towards their statistical representation, and perhaps meeting it, is a valid observation. Concluding that this statistical improvement will magically continue well beyond a group's statistical representation without an external force to explain it, is illogical.

The same illogical argument could be used to declare that the US will be dominated by racial minorities in the near future.

You are promising a smooth flight with a safe landing when the weather should be telling you the opposite is true. I was going to demonstrate what is actually happening by applying the 'swiss cheese model' to this oncoming catastrophic supersession process but realized there are not a lot of layers of safety there at all.

Your outlook appears so naive that I need to believe your god is superior to mine. Of course you don't believe in a god, further undermining your faith that everything will all work out.

A liberal outlook has led you into a minefield that you'd better back out of before being in too deep. Your fairytale with its fairytale ending will most certainly not happen. The elimination of all males now an inevitable outcome. A gendercide set in motion at a primal level.

The US couldn't be dominated by any racial minority. Females are half the population there is no comparison to be had there.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bluster is not evidence.

It wouldn't matter what evidence I put up you will dismiss it. It's people with little integrity that I do battle with most. They're that arrogant they just don't see when they're wrong.

I've already made the point that at the next elections, no matter where these take place in the world, feminism, ideological in effect, will increase its grip. And there is absolutely no way of stopping this happening, there being no precedent set with single-gender rule. Within ten years feminism unaware as it is now will have a majority in the world's governments. Our primal side will favor females, parties forced to field all-female candidates if they are to survive. Regardless the gender vote will eliminate conventional political parties eventually. It is impossible to have a gender balance while still being democratic.

[Sy Borg]

A whole new definition of integrity.

If one doubts an emotional and irrational stranger online making wild claims without providing justification, then one lacks integrity.

However, going online and making wild claims and throwing around ad hominem attacks is apparently honourable behaviour.

Please, enough of this thread hijack. I doubt that UniversalAlien wanted to see his thread turn into an anti-female rant. He was talking about international war, not internal gender politics.

[Gregory A]

A whole new definition of integrity.

If one doubts an emotional and irrational stranger online making wild claims without providing justification, then one lacks integrity.

However, going online and making wild claims and throwing around ad hominem attacks is apparently honourable behaviour.

Please, enough of this thread hijack. I doubt that UniversalAlien wanted to see his thread turn into an anti-female rant. He was talking about international war, not internal gender politics.

Emotional??? I've had this understanding for a long time now. My real fear is censorship, the Left controlling the majority of the media as it does. Philosphy forums not true to the rules and blocking people because of their conservative views.

Irrational??? Just check out the increase in female politicians in your own country and see that the prediction is correct. This understandings started off as a projection made about ten years back a most unlikely eventuation yet based on the trends at the time, and with so many potencial intervening processes to make it absurd.

It's only in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that these things are now inevetable.

Something of a hijack is, true. But this will be the final war.

Anti-female rant??? Where in hell have I said anything even remotely anti-female. I don't even blame feminism in the end. That's even though they will win this battle. They are not even aware of this happening so how can they be responsible.

Feminism is non centralised ideology still ideological in effect though.

It is the patriarch failing in his duty to protect society who will be to blame for this outcome.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, emotional and irrational. And a hijack.

You have brought nothing but baseless assertions based on an extreme example of a slippery slope fallacy with some ad hominem attacks, along with a few gratuitous lies.

No one has ever been disciplined for holding conservative views here. That is a lie. I have, however, banned a few radical right wing extremists who are very far from being conservative, but only for insults or putting the forum in legal jeopardy, not for their stances.