Aren't you guys essentially just liberals?

A nationstates issue (#288) brought up the idea of fast food places paying reparation checks to their victims, and I immediately thought of the racial and economic justice implications of such an idea. For it is the poor who grow fat on poverty, poor information, and food deserts, and therefore a tax upon junk food (I would recommend for this purpose a tax on digestible carbohydrates weighted by glycemic index) whose take was redistributed to the welfare system would tend to put resources into the hands of people who need them to deal with the repercussions of a life-factor over which they had no power.

Another thought that occurred to me while writing the above is that redistributing the proceeds of a glycemic-weighted carbohydrate tax via basic income would have an atypically pure discouragement impact via altering the efficiency of all economic conducts simultaneously. A fraction of consumer resources spent on quickly digesting sugars would be intercepted from the operator of the distribution establishment for quickly digested sugars and given to the public. A fraction of this income would then cycle, promoting the consumption of quickly digesting sugars elsewhere in the economy (with cycle factor proportional to the fraction of the economy dedicated to quickly digesting sugars), but most of it would be otherwise applied. The same thinking could be readily applied to vice taxes.

The economic base determines the cultural structure, idiot.

I capture the magical being and force him to bring about global communism

wrong thread brosef

Yes, that's why 1970s America was vastly more actually reactionary than 1970s Soviet Union. Oh wait, it's the complete opposite.

Leftism is about more than state run economics. Although egalitarianism is vital, an egalitarian market (if stable and uncorrupted) would also be validly leftist.

NPC threads get saged

Go back to Zig Forums, hateslave, your cunt tree needs you.

This is just a cop-out. Kapital is ultimately an economic text, and the social history it describes (for example the English Mill Towns) is just an application of dialectical materialism.

What I find laughable is that Zig Forums and the CTH crowd won't admit that they're actually liberals, and that issues like gay marriage, open borders, treating violent sociopaths "kindly" etc are not just ancillary issues to them, but part of the ideological core. To the extent that even if they're offered a vastly more left-wing state, they'll reject it if it doesn't have the globo-homo trappings that they falsely describe as "leftist".

It isn't extreme enough, still.

No such thing read shaikh.

You might be confusing liberal aids fuckfest culture with socialist culture.

Attached: 1242px-1975_Soviet_Female_Worker.jpg (1242x1919, 378.53K)

Sigh. I forgot. No IDs in this space, so the moderators alone know I’m not cycling my IP to pretend to be multiple.

Sage isn’t a downvote, for the newbs, it just respects the ordering of the forum’s other topics. Meanwhile the NPC meme is solely the product of sad ancestral thinkers who haven’t grasped the importance of empathy as a joyous component of a life worth living.

Ehh? Afraid to admit? Of course I’m a liberal. China is a far right slavecamp society with irresolvable corruption problems and a history of profound unexpected famine with its causes stemming from authoritarian economics. They’re fascistic just as the Soviet Union was, with the same predominant consequences.

revisionist faggot Zig Forums nazbol baiter craving daddies mcummies

OP is a brainlet

Attached: germ.png (988x1264, 1.71M)

Additionally, near the start of Lenin people were riding the trains naked to promote the desexualization of the body.

So was the Russian Empire, was that a socially liberal state?

Every Indo-European tradition celebrates women. Was the Roman Republic socially liberal?

Again, nothing to do with social liberalism.

Here's what you forgot:

I'm from a country that is vastly more corrupt than the PRC. It's also a liberal democracy with a supposedly "radical leftist" government. A radical leftist government that cares more about fast-tracking refugee citizenship and kowtowing to gays than it does actually pursuing leftist economic policy.

Spoiler: If you'd refuse a hardline economically left-wing state because it doesn't let faggots parade around on TV, then you're not a leftist buddy. You're a liberal.

Here's my reasoning and this is coming from someone who considers himself to have liberal social values:
Have you ever seen that fake quote about how Marx said "the classes and races unfit for the new conditions of life (socialism/communism) must give way. They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust." That quote, despite being fake is something I've honestly considered to be something I'd accept if socialism was ever to happen again. Obviously this is a hypothetical scenario taken to the extreme but think of it as rationally as possible; achieving socialism is already an insanely difficult task. It's almost next to impossible and once you have it it's also extremely difficult defending it, so you may finally and hopefully have the possibility of reaching communism. So in this scenario, if that's what it takes to get socialism, so be it. I'll take it.

So you want us to imagine an extremely idealist made-up scenario completely divorced from historical materialism or any historical development whatsoever? Where a socialist state just comes into existence, and exists not as an end to a means or a necessary historical development but as the end goal itself. Why even call ourselves Marxists them?
So you know we're Marxists, and by merit of being Marxists, hold Marx's materialist analysis of capitalism to be largely true. This analysis coming to the conclusion that the proletariat of society are in conflict with the bourgeoisie in regards to their own material self-interest, and that this contradiction can only be resolved by the uprising of the workers in unison against the bourgeoisie and their collaborative class-traitors. After this contradiction resolves, society can then move on towards socialist (lower-phase communism) development which will eventually culminate in communism proper when the material conditions for the state are no longer necessary. Its a purely materialist dialectic.
And then you come here with this magical scenario where we say "but now these workers" with a bunch moralist kvetching and zero materialist framework.
Sure, but objectively this would be a waste of labor. They would be more efficiently used in labor camps directed towards constructing needed infrastructure to society, and this labor would energy wise help alleviate (though not completely fix) the damage they did.

Is this a joke?

Now do you have a non-moralist or non-idealistic argument?

Attached: aeb2d96b6630af142cb39e777d640d459f022fcde5d2500b366d291f04b7eb3a.jpg (825x635, 57.68K)

China’s idea of transhumanism is an ugly generational process. They’re going to be a hundred and sixty years outdated two centuries from now. The rejection of transsexuality is emblematic of that, and the rejection of homosexuality doesn’t help. Homosexuals tend to be honest and compassionate people typically of unusual intelligence who can be counted on to warn the world of societal stressors apt to lead towards famine, both via direct oversight where possible as well as by private inclination towards integrity.

You’re pretending to project knowing someone will call it out, thus reinforcing the scumminess your paranoia leads you to believe exists among your enemies.

Authoritarian socialism has a different culture than libertarian socialism, so it makes sense that the USSR went that way. Not only that, but the economic base of authoritarian vs libertarian is different, so it produces a different culture.

Just want to underscore this. Liberal democracy has done absolutely nothing to solve our endemic corruption problem. If anything the state is even more endemically corrupt now than it was under a military government.

There's no turning back once you realize the role heritability plays in traits like intelligence.

Is there any statistical proof of the above?

Yes, that's why it's a hypothetical scenario involving a magical being you mug.

No, are you familiar with the ethics and morality that Soviet Communism taught in its schools vis a vis sex and marriage?

Yes, authoritarian socialism is the form of socialism that actually produced results and transformed entire feudal landmasses into industrial hubs. Libertarian socialism, by contrast, is the thing that ironically homosexual American jews talk about on podcasts.

Homosexuals care about equality. China is a society of billionaire dicksucking where the billionaires are even more than western billionaires engaged in an intimate parasitism of the economy via state interventions hostile to the poor. That need to preserve an intense falsity at the top is why Chinese fascists are opposed to homosexuality.

In totality, or in respect to what they've been told is their particular group interest to agitate for?

People who are against homosexual rights always rely on lies, and cannot tell the differences between an honest society and one lead by a caste of privileged ultra-wealthy individuals.

The PRC has moved more people out of poverty over the past 20 years than the entirety of the western world combined. Moreover, no Chinese billionaire is above the state. If Jack Ma started to agitate for mass cheap labor to be brought in from Southeast Asia to replace increasingly expensive labor in Guangdong, he'd be disappeared immediately. Compare that to Bezos & Co.

Have you forgotten to take your retroviral drugs or something? You're just rambling you disgusting homosexual creature.

Can you elaborate on what that has to do with what I said?

Woops thought you were a pol poster, sorry for calling you an idiot.

Idk man, one big US military base in Syria seems pretty cool, so were the Paris communes.

I've got no problem with authoritarian socialism, especially since it lifted a backwards as fuck country to a first world superpower. I don't know why you think antihomo culture is a permanent feature of auth soc

Do you even know what that word means?
Culture emerges from the material conditions of society, not out of a vacuum

Then it means nothing to us. We're communists out of an understanding of Marx's analysis of capitalism, historical materialism, and the conclusions of such, not because we would "like" or "want" a communist society.
Yes, and it was no more reactionary than the US in the 70s. What exactly is your definition of reactionary here? Because I can't see how that education was in any way reactionary.

Ohhhhhh I love the new filter LOL

Hopefully its one of those genies that twist your wishes. Pow-wow socialism here I come.

Attached: 5d76hrurjitz.jpg (1024x824, 172.98K)

You don't actually believe all that horseshit about one big US military base in Syria right?

Do you? Liberalism is an ideology that starts with the individual's freedom as its central axiom. That's all there is to it. Liberals are people who follow that ideology. They are cancerous retards who follow the words of a bunch of navel-gazing wealthy Anglos from the 18th and 19th centuries who had abstracted themselves so far away from reality that an ideology that denied the basic premise of identity-group relationships being symbiotic escaped their supposed genius.

What you're arguing here is that it does emerge out of a vacuum though. If you're denying a biological element to culture, then that's exactly what you're arguing. That culture is purely environmentally deterministic, which, as anyone who can see even third-generation Maghrebi immigrants in Europe knows, is complete horse shit.

It was certainly far less liberal.

Totality, I think; I’ve only seen one possible exception. I don’t know his heart, but I know he is not himself a reliable advocate of gay rights. I think if you sorted out gay people who think it is alright to be gay from those who are hypocritical about it (which is to say from those who would deepen their closet by punishing others), you would find that the hypocrites were biased towards egalitarianism, while the unhypocritical were absolute.

Although some gay people have a history of error about what promotes egalitarianism, a category into which I myself fall. I used to be more tax averse and more welfare skeptical; I still do think that we need better technology for ideal interventions (cyber limbs for manual laborers to boost their wages!)

The hallmark of fascism is corruption. Integrity prevents great suffering.

I wasn't aware we were just trading anecdotes here.

Most "fascistic" states were and are vastly less corrupt than my liberal democratic one.

Welp looks like we lost the conversation. Last hold we were at is why you think antihomo is a permanent fixture of auth soc. Let me know if you want to explain your views, because right now they're confusing.

I think antihomo is a permanent fixture of any rational society, not just an authoritarian socialist one. Homosexuals are sexual deviants by definition.

What's your evidence for antihomo being rational?

Attached: 1500253104832.png (987x968, 30.09K)

Gay people are drawn to the physicality of the working man. That means they have a distinct reason to be either directly (where safe) or indirectly (where unsafe) protective of the interests of the working man. For to most classes of people the working man is dourly comical, occasionally unstable, and often revolting, and as such they are unjustly victimized by systems with no acceptance of people who are drawn to caring about ordinary workers.

Such as China, whose worker rights record is an atrocity. Again, repressing gays stabilizes China only because China is fascistic and opposed to egalitarianism.

There's a recent evolutionary theory that homosexuals were advantageous because they'd help raise kids.

Attached: capitalist culture.jpg (2676x2024 609.2 KB, 823.08K)

Attached: 1425601375957.jpg (680x510, 72.98K)

Pure ideology.

Man, HIV really rots away your brain huh?

I never said that, there are economic factors behind mass immigration. It's called capitalism and the desire to increase the size of domestic markets (labor and consumer-bases) artificially for example.

Most fellow "leftists" would vehemently disagree with the veneration of healthy tradition in your pictures and support what capitalism and liberalism have done though.

Liberalism is the belief in individual liberty as an a priori moral good. Simple as that. A logical outcome of this worldview is that gays should have the "right" to marry".

If you can't defend your stance that antihomo is rational, you really shouldn't post anything at all.

Like occasionally you'll start to actually talk to me but then you'll shut down once you have to start proving yourself. Maybe take a break?

Why not just ask if we want the USSR back if it was so "socially regressive" or whatever. Most here, and certainly I would say YES.

this sounds ideal, though I would go further and say that marriage itself should be struck from legislation.

Attached: you seeing this.png (210x200, 72.66K)

It is sexually deviant behavior by its very definition. If it isn't, why do homosexuals have rates of AIDS hundreds of times that of the general population? Anal sex by definition is deviant, since it tears the anal lining and weakens the immune systems of those involved even if they don't necessarily contract a disease from it.

Marriage is a useful tool for regulating pairbonding and guarding against degenerate liberal tendencies.

Unfortunately not true. Zig Forums is full of CTH homos and shitlibs these days.

Would be desirable if monogamy is state-enforced with the death penalty.

Attached: corbyn_state_issued_girlfriends.jpg (698x960, 119.58K)

Ooh, that one. I don’t think it’s valid. I think gays are evolutionarily adaptive because they increase the stability of societies that care about all members of society through defending otherwise marginalized people. This looks like helping care for the young - relieving social stressors and buoying the outliers makes fit parents better and unfit parents less likely to breed.

Repressing gays stabilizes societies that rely on a slave caste, because homosexuality is a solid tenth of the population, and by sheer carnality gays connect across society in a way that funnels resources towards the less directly advantaged. This funneling creates tensions and “unsafe ambitions” in highly unequal societies.

If however society is structured to actively care about the less directly advantaged, this funneling takes load off of institutional bulwarks through pre-emptive voluntary individual intervention, thereby reducing societal stressors. Gay people are voluntarily charitable and they like to root for the underdog.

It first and foremost correlated with the development of capitalism. Liberalism is still at its base predictaed on capitalism. With no capitalism, there is not liberalism, period.
It does not.
It's largely economically and materially determined (even at the initial starting point), yes. Modern capitalism does not reject outside cultures, it merely puts them in interplay with each other inside the market. It does, however, transform these cultures into nothing more than consumer identities to be purchased and exchanged within consumer society. Such a thing would not be possible in a socialist society, because the means to transform culture into commodity would not exist.
You keep using that word, and I still don't believe you know what it means. Yes, it was less liberal (or more, not at all liberal), but not for the reasons you are probably stating.

Attached: LiberalsExplained.png (1259x506, 141.54K)

Being a socialist is deviant by definition. Something being deviant isn't a good argument for why we should be against it.

Yes, gay people have to be more careful about spreading disease. This can be as easy as wearing a condom, but anal sex isn't as prevalent as you think. Talk to a gay person sometime. You have to do a fuck ton of prep, it's a w(hole) event.

So if I'm right that your argument is that being against spreading disease is rational, then I agree. But abstinence and state repression is less effective than safe sex practices. You can see it in the data we have on abstinence-only sex ed programs.

We literally have a Cheka/NKVD and USSR thread open you faggot

This is really interesting, I haven't thought of gay people taking the load off the state before. Thank you

marriage is obsolete in a communal setting where children are raised by a moral society.
people can still bang, couple, and break up. just no marriage. there is literally no point other than raising children, and that becomes a nonissue when they're being raised by a school and community/neighborhood. all their food, housing, and medicine is provided communally just like everyone else's. a child could be free to choose their mentors and whoever they were drawn to to take after in terms of work or what have you.

Attached: hook froth.jpg (663x655, 51.11K)

Define capitalism.
And regardless, that's neither here nor there, the ideas that liberalism proposes are not inextricably linked to capitalism either way. Again, once more: Liberalism is simply the idea that individual liberty is an a priori moral good. Since that's so baked into the western psyche as something that's positive, don't be mistaken and think I'm praising it. Individual liberty is cancer, rights without obligations are cancer, individualism is cancer, thinking that individuals can exist healthily without a correspondingly healthy group identity is also cancer.

Proof? We already have tons of evidence from GWAS now that everything from intelligence to propensity for aggression is heritable. Average-level behavioral traits like these play no small role in determining the general culture of a place/society/population.

No it isn't.

Third time: Liberalism is the idea that individual liberty is an a priori moral good.

r/CTH also have threads about those things, doesn't change the fact they're just ironic tranny LARPers who don't realize they'd be gulag'ed if they ever lived in the Soviet Union.

I remember when the hippies tried communal child-raising. I remember it was a complete disaster.

Absolutely degenerate.

You have no idea why marriage was brought up in the same paragraph as prostitution by Engels, do you? Marriage historically did none of this, it actually did/was used for the opposite. Monogamous relationships arise "naturally" by themselves regardless, and are the dominant form of relationship in when all other factors are removed.

I'm of the opinion that most of you are essentially conservatives with some marginally left-wing economic sympathies. You'd deny this, so let's settle it with a litmus test hypothetical example

Do you accept the proposal this magical being is offering?

Your argument is based on things that could easily be argued from the opposite perspective. Just because liberal is a dirty word doesn't make you right. Idpol is a bourgeois disease that is used to divide the working class, ironically you fall right in to this trap by actively dividing the working class by idpol. Your fixation on "traditions" and "purity" are nationalistic and reactionary.

Yes it is. Here's the definition. Dude, you won't even engage with my arguments. You're being a big baby. Replies aren't likes here, you shouldn't be getting dopamine for being shitty. That would be deviant psychology.

Attached: SmartSelect_20190427-215522_Opera.jpg (1000x654, 151.36K)

Remember when CTH and the rest of the "dirtbag left" used this as their marketing tagline?

Remeber how 6 months later they were "raising money for transkids" on their show, and supporting BLM?

Ye shall know them by their works.

Marriage contracts also arise naturally my deviant friend.

Where I'm from stating you're a socialist is not "departing from the norm". Likewise with most of continental Europe.

No, because it would actually create strife in the long run and a reaction that would be hard to quell. Essentially, we'd be outnumbered by the social liberals and the other reactionary forces that would take advantage of their discontent. The right is more than willing to cater to these groups if necessary. People forget how much people in the North America hate socialism. I don't doubt the all their morals and scruples would go out the window to stop the evil socialist. In some other countries it might make more sense, but I don't think the U.S. is one of them.

and your comparing this to the insanity of the modern family, with all its domestic abuse, crackpot ideas, etc?
here's a way to make the pill go down easier. with communal child raising, the child wouldn't be forced to grow up with liberal degenerate parents. they would still feel attachment to their mother and father a little bit, but if they turned out to be shithouse then the kid could go live with chad instead with absolutely no fear. and if the parents wanted to claim ownership of the child the community would laugh at them and send them to gulag.

yes you are christcuck

Attached: good christ.gif (311x210, 117.88K)

Raising money for trans kids and supporting BLM are good things. That is encouraging to hear about CTH

That makes sense. Want to engage with the rest of the argument? Please don't just pick at the weakest points and then change the direction to an area you feel more comfortable in.

No, harems are the "natural" form, which thanks to sexual liberalism we are regressing to. I prefer civilization where the scarce resource pussy is equitably distributed instead of monopolized by an elite few.

It's the other way around in Europe imo. The politician/leader who successfully masters an incorporation of right-wing policy on immigration, crime etc, and left-wing economics is going to completely dominate this continent.

The modern American family is a product of social liberalism. It's degeneration literally goes hand in hand with the onward march of permissive ideas about what a family is.

I'm not a Christian. The most actually reactionary societies in the world are all non-Christian actually. Typical eurocentric shitlib fixated on phantasmic "white patriarchies" et al.

t. shitlib.

LOL. Are you aware of who patient zero for HIV was? Are you aware of how and why it spread so quickly?

Well yes, for deviant and unnatural acts you do actually have to prep.

Incorrect. Socially liberal societies generally have higher rates of STIs. Compare Japan to America.

It's bold of you to assume that my stance is supporting BLM or prioritizing idpol. My belief is that the issues that idpol-focused people cite would be solved with the destruction of the bourgeoisie and the liberation of the workers. You don't have BLM anymore because socialism implies racial equality and the LGBT wouldn't be inflamed to division from the working class by bourgeois propaganda. Do you think it's a coincidence that corporations will support LGBT movements and take sides on the BLM question but not even acknowledge socialism? It's because it's a distraction.

My apologies, but it has become a trend among elements of the self-proclaimed "dirtbag left" to adopt a cosmetic opposition to identity politics while actually supporting it.

I agree with you. You err in assuming that western business elites don't support LGBT causes out of a bona fide belief in them though. They absolutely do. Just like American elites more generally really do believe in liberal democracy as the final and ultimate stage of human development. This is why America isn't always a rational actor on the world stage (i.e. purely self-interested).

It depends what part of Europe, but I'm libel to agree based on what I've read. There it might make more sense. I still question a socialism that preys on divisions of the working class as how thoroughly class conscious it would be.
Seems like a very unstable form of socialism that's libel to backslide back into liberalism given enough time.

Hah, there never was a united class consciousness between disparate races here, and there never will be. Ethnic diversity dilutes class consciousness.

Even in the Soviet Union ethnic strife was common.

Of course there's a personal belief factor but I do think there is a strategy to it, they really play up their idpol support but try their damned hardest to cover up their labor abuses. I'm sure the strategy is moreso focused on maximizing profits and public support while avoiding facing repercussions for their abuses but there is nonetheless a strategy that has the effect of distracting from real issues.

Definitely, what they call "CSR" is a marketing exercise in part.

Yeah man, people were really fucking stupid about safe sex at that time.

upi.com/Japan-teens-have-high-STD-infection-rate/90051102069079/

You can't really compare the whole of the US to the whole of Japan, because sex-ed varies from state to state. It is clear that safe sex ed is more effective at preventing pregnancy and the transfer of sti than abstinence only.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11365588/

This might only be common knowledge in the US because this is a debate we have often.

Jesus Christ, did you even read Marx? Commodity production based on the private ownership of the means of the production and the exploitation of wage labour to extract surplus value, surplus which is reinvested into production for the purpose of further surplus extraction or simply utilized for the purchase of commodities.
Yes they fucking are you anti-materialist nigger.
None of this is a materialist argument, this is all just moralist kvetching. At least when some anons bring up those things, they bring up an actual materialism argument not based on "feelings".
I stated largely materially determined. The average-level behavioral traits of a population also do not develop in a vacuum. And while some genetic traits do play a role, when observing the socialist societies of the past these are shown to mean very little. Socialism generally eliminates the Autism Level poverty traps/spirals which occur in capitalism which prevents and stifles intelligence development among the poorest groups of society. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641149/

Attached: 121021CMC.jpg (960x720, 50.69K)

no you fucking retard, it's a product of hundreds if not thousands of years of puritanical judeo-christian monogamy.
how fucking stupid are you?

Attached: Information Retrieval.jpg (635x349, 89.81K)

Read Origin of the Family. Marriage contracts never stopped deviant attitude, and in Victorian England did the exact opposite.

People in general? Because the gigantic, orders of magnitude disparity between normal people and homosexuals existed back then too.

You're welcome to find a state with lower STI rates than Japan. You won't be able to find one.

Ok, by these criteria the Roman Empire was capitalistic. You had commodities markets, even futures markets, you had capital investment by private owners and international trade too. Is the difference between the Roman Empire and Victorian Britain one of kind, or degree?

No they aren't. What your earlier picture described (e.g. negative liberty/rights before the law) is an application of liberalism's central axiom. Not that central axiom itself. For the fourth time, the central axiomatic foundation of liberalism is the idea that individual liberty is an a priori moral good.

Mental health, familial stability, self-esteem, pairbonding and fecundity are all highly important to a society's standard of living, even in purely material terms. For example, if high-intelligence people are living lifestyles where they're almost incapable of settling down and forming a healthy family until they're in their 30s, and are only having one child between them, then that will lead to inter-generational degradation of human capital.

So you are denying the scientific fact that intelligence is at least 50% heritable?

Do you just eat up whatever the west says about the USSR?

Attached: 1436748396_573e6cd204_b.jpg (1024x640, 496.5K)

Sure there is - stop before you go full retard and declare that anyone who deviates from your ideal human must be removed from society. So some people are dumb. Who cares? There's still a place for them in society. You can fully accept the premises of racial science and still reject racism.

As a foreigner this makes me laugh. Your reference point for what actual religious tradition and rightist social mores are most be so narrow.

America invented feminism, normalized sexual deviancy, popularized no-fault divorce, forced the decolonization of Africa and the world, pushed multiculturalism to every corner of the globe, made liberal democracy the only globally accepted form of government, and proliferated a pop culture and societal norms that destroys the birth rates of anyone with triple digit Autism Levels.

The Whig Republic that is the United States of America is the single most powerful weapon that liberals have ever wielded in all of human history. Nothing else even comes close.

No, I like the USSR. But the existence of ethnic strife, both in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the modern day Russian Federation, is undeniable. Ethnic conflict is a function of ethnic diversity and proximity. Nothing else.

It is not ideal but okay I guess.

The USSR was pretty diverse, if memory serves me.
Greatest cases of ethnic strife I remember, normally had a reactionary motive behind it.

Well, not necessary motive, but an element to it that was reactionary.

Most cases were in the Caucuses and were fairly simple: Ethnic Russians and Dagestanis+Chechens do not like one another. The latter are well known as raiders and slavers from the Ottoman period.

WEW
anyway, so America didn't invent feminism you absolute fucking nigger. one of the earliest written works of self described feminism was in 1792 "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman," in FUCKING FRANCE. also women have been wanting to not be property for a while. Also popularizing no-fault divorce would again be laid at the feet of Europe, and again the christians. remember the protestants? remember Henry VIII?
All the rest of your shit has nothing to do with the topic of marriage or child rearing so I'm not even going to respond to it.
fucking kill yourself you worthless bootlicking cuck

Attached: figure 1-1 kys.png (205x246, 9.23K)

Literally so the fuck what? Why must the state enforce your fee-fees?

Heteros spread huge amounts on stis before safe sex ed also. I don't know why this surprises you.

It's possible that there's not a single state that the US has less stis than Japan, but that's not what the study was about (if you read it). Really this just speaks to Americans being idiots. Even if there was a state, it wouldn't matter because study after study has shown that safe sex ed is better than abstinent only.

We'd have to compare sex ed types in Japan to sti rates, but even now sex ed in general is really fucking bad. My buddy helps out Japanese exchange students and they've had entire groups get the clap because there's an idea that Japanese are clean and don't get stis.

t. man who supports popularizing the most deviant sexual practices imaginable and supports trannies.

Because people who promote maladaptive behavior need to be dealt with for the good of all the nation. Diseases have to be checked at the source, after all. Understand that it's not personal, human rights lawyers and NGOs would be dealt with too.

Spoken like a man who has never had sex. Seriously, have sex. With an actual women.

Do you understand the concept of a ratio?

Your initial claim was that "progressive" education works better than tradition/conservatism in checking STIs. By those standards, the most socially liberal countries should have the lowest STI rates, except they don't.