Kash about to release that Epstein list!

Wish in one hand and [BLEEP] in the other...

Don't worry.  You aren't on it. 

Right?

---

The trash is taking itself out.

https://twitter.com/LeadingReport/status...pEmgA&s=19

---

Look, this is a simple argument if it wasn't politicized. This isn't really about women at all.

Human beings are gyno-centric. We build our subconsciously build our cultures around protecting the female egg, and these behaviors mistakenly are seen as being pro or anti woman. This is because if you have a village of 1000 women and 1000 men, if you sent the women to war and 900 died, it would be impossible to reestablish your village. However, if you sent 1000 men to war, you could easily repopulate with little to no drop-off. This idea gets transferred to the woman, but it's more about the egg and survival of the species.

This can look oppressive in cultures where violence is common. For example, in certain places in the Middle East, it may seem oppressive to have women cover their bodies from head to toe and be escorted by their husband or father. However, in a society where there's prevalence of violence against women, these oppressive measures actually help to protect the egg. In more modern cultures, these measures can be loosened. The West has built a strict set of codes that are enforced in largely non-biased institutions. The safer women feel, the more inclined society is to loosen the protection of the egg.

This gets taken to the furthest extremes by groups who don't value human reproduction, so it makes sense this finds a voice in the LGBTQ+ communities and climate alarmists. The less that is a societal value, the more likely a movement forms to remove all protections that might insulate the egg. Rape or discomfort is not really the driving force for these laws, but we think that because of political branding.

Personally, I think it's incredibly stupid to remove laws that protect the egg. It's short-sighted, anti-human, and potentially harmful to our society.

[BLEEP] yikes, buddy. Thanks for proving my point though...



So, how does this protect the egg? This is what the law requires in these red states. This is the result of the law you support. How does this "protect the egg?" (still laughing at that rant)

---

First of all, it's not a rant. It's a philosophical point. One that you aren't addressing with a picture. There are points made that support the right and points that support the idiots on the left. Maybe you could try to take one and make a cogent argument.

My take on my own post is that we should hold the long-established position on the issue, because it's tried and true. Properly understanding the risk helps lawmakers make appropriate laws. Anyone who wants to be a "man" forfeits their rights to protected spaces. Men don't care if women use their bathrooms (largely). This is really a one-way issue. If you can impregnate an egg, you don't get access to protected spaces.

---

First of all, it's not a rant. It's a philosophical point. One that you aren't addressing with a picture. There are points made that support the right and points that support the idiots on the left. Maybe you could try to take one and make a cogent argument.

My take on my own post is that we should hold the long-established position on the issue, because it's tried and true. Properly understanding the risk helps lawmakers make appropriate laws. Anyone who wants to be a "man" forfeits their rights to protected spaces. Men don't care if women use their bathrooms (largely). This is really a one-way issue. If you can impregnate an egg, you don't get access to protected spaces.

See, here I was all thinking about women as being their own independent, human entities. Independent of their unfertilized [BLEEP] eggs

Yikes.

You think people pass those laws to "protect the egg," but the image I posted is a result of those laws. So, how do those laws protect the egg?

---

First of all, it's not a rant. It's a philosophical point. One that you aren't addressing with a picture. There are points made that support the right and points that support the idiots on the left. Maybe you could try to take one and make a cogent argument.

My take on my own post is that we should hold the long-established position on the issue, because it's tried and true. Properly understanding the risk helps lawmakers make appropriate laws. Anyone who wants to be a "man" forfeits their rights to protected spaces. Men don't care if women use their bathrooms (largely). This is really a one-way issue. If you can impregnate an egg, you don't get access to protected spaces.

See, here I was all thinking about women as being their own independent, human entities. Independent of their unfertilized [BLEEP] eggs

Yikes.

You think people pass those laws to "protect the egg," but the image I posted is a result of those laws. So, how do those laws protect the egg?

Because the masculine appearing person who is taking that selfie is not able to fertilize an egg.
L2L's explanation is bizarre almost to the point of being science fiction, but it is internally consistent.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

First of all, it's not a rant. It's a philosophical point. One that you aren't addressing with a picture. There are points made that support the right and points that support the idiots on the left. Maybe you could try to take one and make a cogent argument.

My take on my own post is that we should hold the long-established position on the issue, because it's tried and true. Properly understanding the risk helps lawmakers make appropriate laws. Anyone who wants to be a "man" forfeits their rights to protected spaces. Men don't care if women use their bathrooms (largely). This is really a one-way issue. If you can impregnate an egg, you don't get access to protected spaces.

See, here I was all thinking about women as being their own independent, human entities. Independent of their unfertilized [BLEEP] eggs

Yikes.

You think people pass those laws to "protect the egg," but the image I posted is a result of those laws. So, how do those laws protect the egg?

I think people don't think about the underlying mechanisms of human subconscious, which is often the motive driving our behavior. The reason we have the laws that protect women is because we're a gynocentric species. You apparently can't even think about conscious realities. It really has nothing to do with breasts or vaginas. That alone is not worthy of protecting. 

Please, try to use that brain of yours if you want to engage on a topic. Don't start with what you were told. Nobody is impressed.

---

See, here I was all thinking about women as being their own independent, human entities. Independent of their unfertilized [BLEEP] eggs

Yikes.

You think people pass those laws to "protect the egg," but the image I posted is a result of those laws. So, how do those laws protect the egg?

Because the masculine appearing person who is taking that selfie is not able to fertilize an egg.
L2L's explanation is bizarre almost to the point of being science fiction, but it is internally consistent.

Tsk, tsk, Mikey.

---

See, here I was all thinking about women as being their own independent, human entities. Independent of their unfertilized [BLEEP] eggs

Yikes.

You think people pass those laws to "protect the egg," but the image I posted is a result of those laws. So, how do those laws protect the egg?

I think people don't think about the underlying mechanisms of human subconscious, which is often the motive driving our behavior. The reason we have the laws that protect women is because we're a gynocentric species. You apparently can't even think about conscious realities. It really has nothing to do with breasts or vaginas. That alone is not worthy of protecting. 

Please, try to use that brain of yours if you want to engage on a topic. Don't start with what you were told. Nobody is impressed.

---

Because the masculine appearing person who is taking that selfie is not able to fertilize an egg.
L2L's explanation is bizarre almost to the point of being science fiction, but it is internally consistent.

Tsk, tsk, Mikey.

Human beings are, alone, worthy of protection.

If you don't agree with that statement, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

---

I think people don't think about the underlying mechanisms of human subconscious, which is often the motive driving our behavior. The reason we have the laws that protect women is because we're a gynocentric species. You apparently can't even think about conscious realities. It really has nothing to do with breasts or vaginas. That alone is not worthy of protecting. 

Please, try to use that brain of yours if you want to engage on a topic. Don't start with what you were told. Nobody is impressed.

---

Tsk, tsk, Mikey.

Human beings are, alone, worthy of protection.

If you don't agree with that statement, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

You aren't worthy of [BLEEP].. None of your kind are.. You and your kind ARE [BLEEP].

---

I think people don't think about the underlying mechanisms of human subconscious, which is often the motive driving our behavior. The reason we have the laws that protect women is because we're a gynocentric species. You apparently can't even think about conscious realities. It really has nothing to do with breasts or vaginas. That alone is not worthy of protecting. 

Please, try to use that brain of yours if you want to engage on a topic. Don't start with what you were told. Nobody is impressed.

---

Tsk, tsk, Mikey.

Human beings are, alone, worthy of protection.

If you don't agree with that statement, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

You clearly don't understand my position. Or you're poorly articulating yours. I'm gonna assume it's both.

---

Human beings are, alone, worthy of protection.

If you don't agree with that statement, then you and I have nothing to discuss.

You clearly don't understand my position. Or you're poorly articulating yours. I'm gonna assume it's both.

I understand your position and I think it is borderline sociopathic.

---

You clearly don't understand my position. Or you're poorly articulating yours. I'm gonna assume it's both.

I understand your position and I think it is borderline sociopathic.

Says the piece of trash that supports men in girls bathrooms.. Right, Pete?

Get all your talking points from BlueSky? Or I mean, PedoSky?

---

You clearly don't understand my position. Or you're poorly articulating yours. I'm gonna assume it's both.

I understand your position and I think it is borderline sociopathic.

Explain my position from your perspective, please.

---