ObjectivityIncarnate

Reminder that you’re someone who reacts to being told condoms are less convenient to use than long-term hormonal contraception by claiming the person who told you hates women, lol.

You know I’m right. There’s no other explanation for devolving into nonsensical personal insults while simultaneously completely evading my rebuttals.

So I accept your concession.

Keep repeating it’s “nonsensical” doesn’t make it nonsensical.

It’s not my repetition that makes it nonsensical, it’s the fact that assets are purchased with already-taxed money. Having to pay the government for the ‘privilege’ of continuing to own what you’ve purchased, in perpetuity, is nonsensical, full stop.

Wrong. France had a wealth tax for decades.

And this was the result (emphasis added):

Capital flight since the ISF wealth tax’s creation in 1988 amounts to ca. €200 billion; The ISF causes an annual fiscal shortfall of €7 billion, or about twice what it yields

And it’s very telling that linking to speculation about some arbitrary future date is your response to being called out on your lies re the trends of life expectancy, educational attainment, and poverty. Your inability to own up to any of your falsehoods makes you pointless to continue engaging with. The statistics are crystal clear—your assertions are demonstrably bunk.

This reply serves only to directly contradict the most obvious additional falsehoods, for others who may read this exchange, before I move on.

Good luck getting enough volunteers to work in and maintain a sewer system.

I accept your concession.

He’s likely going to have mental health issues now

Now?

Some women like that little dance of rejecting and the guy not giving up, but even then only if they think you’re cute beforehand. But most women will just find that creepy and off-putting.

The big frustration comes with the fact that the “most” women above are still happily consuming the romance movies/novels with the toxic paradigm you describe, along with the “some”. And then they’ll turn around and get indignant about it existing in real life, while promoting/encouraging it culturally simultaneously.

Look at the colossal sales figures for 50 Shades of Grey, what percentage of that do you think came from men?

Do you believe that anytime anyone agrees to do something, but only if they get paid, that they’re being exploited?

so many people view men as only wanting sex, so if a man complains about being lonely, isolated, or being unloved, it seems like everyone jumps to the conclusion that he’s only talking about sex. Then they scorn him, reinforcing the pattern of loneliness and building the sense of frustration and being a victim of ostracization.

Precisely.

Some people just value kindness and try to be nice for the sake of being nice; but if it lands them with accusations and scorn then it’ll only go on so long before they stop. And then people will scorn them either for being rude to women or snubbing them.

Not only that, but that will mean that the only men remaining, who haven’t stopped, are that minority that are being transactional, which further distorts women’s perception of men as a whole.

The reality is that men are also conscious and complex human beings, and depicting them as these simple and one-dimensional sex pests isn’t really moving the dialogue forward. All it does is give women a temporary feeling of moral superiority which they then chase like any other addiction.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

1.Sure, I will take your risk assessment over these banks anytime (not). 2.If the value is so unstable it can plummet over night, then it was grossly overestimated initially, back to my previous point.

Again, none of your business, because you’re not the lender.

Neither should roads, schools, garbage collection, police, firefighters, etc, I guess.

Idiotic straw man which I will be ignoring.

I fail to see why you so much want to protect them from paying any tax…

This is you projecting your unwillingness to support anything that doesn’t personally benefit you.

The principle of taxing people based on the value of what they already own is nonsensical, no matter how much or how little that value is. Objecting to both wealth taxes and property taxes just means I’m not a hypocrite.

You could still tax by hundreds of billions the ultra-rich class at the country level (I assume US here) and neither their lifestyle nor their long term prospective lifestyle would be impacted the slightest.

Taxing based on ‘you could do without it’, especially when the definition of that excess is completely arbitrarily defined, is a horrendous precedent to set. Vibe taxation. Every wealth tax aimed at the ‘ultra-rich’ in other countries in the past has either been repealed outright, or was broadened so that it, surprise surprise, is no longer aimed only at the ultra-rich, and falls into the lap of of the middle class, once again.

Or alternatively, we can keep saying it’s complicated and/or doesn’t make sense

Based on the failures already witnessed elsewhere in the world, yes. It objectively doesn’t make sense.

you can enjoy record breaking wealths of a few that will make headlines

Inflation is a thing, so those records will always be broken eventually. It only “makes headlines” to appeal to dullards who don’t understand things like that. The same type of people who freak out over sensationalist “medical headlines” that are never as drastic as the clickbait article makes them out to be. The same type of people think the violent crime rate is constantly rising because they stare at 24-hour news networks who are incentivized to get your attention, not be accurate, while the actual rate has dropped steadily for decades and decades.

while the life expectation education level, overall population health keeps going down and poverty keeps going up…

Liar on all counts:

• US Life expectancy is at it highest ever in 2025
• Educational attainment is steadily trending upward
• Poverty is trending downward

until one day, it catches you!

Hopefully, one day, the facts will catch you.

So the acts depicted in that photo and described in that article, is not at all on the same level as the things ICE is being criticized for?

Why link this article instead of the CNN article all the info actually came from?

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/11/04/us-ice-abuses-in-los-angeles-set-stage-for-other-cities

Does that hand on the left look white to you?

don’t know what subjective is lol

No, you don’t. Subjective means an opinion, a value judgment that’s not tied to actual facts. For example, someone liking the exact same food more than another person. It’s the same food, neither of you are “correct” or “incorrect” about how delicious it is, because that’s subjective.

Nothing I said was subjective. Condoms are objectively less convenient than any of the other methods I mentioned, for the factual reasons I stated. No method of contraception is less convenient than one that is a separate object that you need to physically possess on your person at the time of the sexual act. Barrier methods are objectively the least convenient method to prevent pregnancy.

You invented some arbitrary metric of “birth control is only convenient and effective when you don’t have to carry it with you,”

No, you made that up. I’ve only ever been talking about relative convenience. You entered this conversation when you responded to my stating the fact that female methods are more convenient than the one male method.

However, it is a fact that even if all other things were equal, ‘have to carry it with you’ is objectively less convenient than ‘don’t have to carry it with you’. Any condition, any “have to”, that applies to a method is a mark against its convenience. Obviously.

As if it’s such a strain on your gentle countenance to bear the massive weight of less than 2 grams.

What a ridiculous straw man, I never said one word about the weight being a factor. It costs nothing not to be disingenuous, you know.

Do you not carry your phone, wallet, keys, and trousers with you?

I’m going to set aside the idiotic false equivalence for a second, to point out that you’re inadvertently agreeing with me.

You carry your phone, wallet, and keys, because you have to—it’s literally an inconvenience. If your locks were biometric and therefore you didn’t have to carry your keys around, that would be more convenient. Being able to use Google Wallet et al to purchase things without having your wallet on you is more convenient than having to carry your wallet around.

You’re an absolute tosser. Just say you hate women, mate. that’d be easier.

I understand that you’re very aware dishonesty is easier (as you demonstrated with all of the disingenuous nonsense above), but I’m not a dishonest person.

Imagine being so outraged over someone stating the fact that condoms are less convenient than contraception methods that are one and done for weeks/months/years, that you’re literally insulting them and have actually convinced yourself that they hate women!

How foolish.

That “theoretical value” is used as collateral to borrow money for billionaires expenses.

And unless the loan is defaulted on, it never stops being theoretical.

Why is it theoretical only for taxes purpose, but very real when you talk to a bank?.

Loaded question, it’s not any less theoretical in the latter case.

Also, it’s entirely possible for some scandal to plummet the value of a stock overnight, such that the value that was used as collateral is now not worth nearly that much. But it is the lender’s prerogative to decide to take that risk, it’s no one’s business other than the lender and the borrower, both private entities.

Is that your opinion on properties taxes?

Yes, property taxes should not be a thing.

Hypocrisy detection failed, lol.

And at this scale, it’s not “stuff you own”. You may have an issue assessing what a billion is. Do you know the difference between a million and a billion? It’s roughly a billion…

You may have an issue understanding the simple phrase “stuff you own”, since you’re here apparently arguing that beyond a certain valuation, assets are no longer assets.

I’m afraid you’ve been propagandized successfully. There are plenty of non-white ICE agents.

So, was it deliberate for you to assign the ‘reddit stereotype’ to the exact opposite sentiment it’s actually associated with, or?

Two males have any sort of positive interaction with each other
Weirdos: Wow so GAY

Saying it in a positive way doesn’t really make it better. Normalize men being able to enjoy each other’s company without assuming they’re falling in love or lusting after each other, sheesh.

The classic analogy is the jar of 100 sweets.

Classic, but deeply flawed.

This is literally the same way white supremacists ‘justify’ being distrustful/suspicious of black people in general.

The mental stress that this level of paranoia inflicts on you is likely going to be more harmful on average.

You’re best off overall if you take reasonable precautions (having a small weapon/pepper spray), and just go about your day without stressing about it all the time.

Not to mention that rape by a stranger is literally the rarest type of rape, re relationship to the victim.

EDIT: It really is bizarre to see such simple, uncontroversial, and trivially-easily-verified facts downvoted so much.

they’re easy to carry around

It doesn’t matter how easy they are to carry around, having to carry them around is by definition less convenient than not having to carry anything around.

your “argument” is entirely subjective.

You don’t know what “subjective” means. There’s nothing subjective about ‘having to carry this thing around and have it with you every time you have sex is less convenient than doing something once and being set for months/years’. That’s just a fact.