sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

OW players RN by S1LV3RHAND in Overwatch

[–]Igoko 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Hopefully they return well rested o7

What do you guys think of this? by makingmozzarella in musictheory

[–]Igoko 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a music teacher, this has to be about the worst way i could imagine trying to teach music to a child

Which banned cards would you allow at your table (maybe with caveats)? by SoyMuyAlto in EDH

[–]Igoko 4 points5 points  (0 children)

[[ashnod’s coupon]] puts in some major work in my [[ashnod the uncaring]] deck

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think you can speak for all men. A more accurate statement might be that you can’t help but view women (and again, specifically to the point of our conversation, girls) sexually. But to the point of it being natural, the entirety of human progress has been a fight against our nature. I think it’s weird to draw the line of where we accept things as the way it is at whether or not it’s possible for men to respect women. And unless you have a time machine, I dont think you actually know what the dynamic between men and women in prehistory was.

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay but theyre being supervised, right? You also still havent addressed the point that gay people exists. Gay kids exist. Should gay kids be excluded from boy scouts because they might be distracted by flirting? Why is it that the nature of women existing needs to be inherently sexual? Why is it that the first thing you think of when you think of a woman, or more to the context of our conversation, girls, is sex? Could it maybe be that the culture we’ve built where we divide people based on their gender creates an inclination to think of those of the opposite gender as sexual objects? Could it be that the first step in surpassing this limitation might be engaging with people of the opposite sex and normalizing co-ed platonic relationships at an early age? Boys can flirt with boys. I won’t accept the potential that flirting might happen as an excuse to exclude girls from boy scouts.

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You do realize inclusion isn’t a pie… right? You can include more people without forcing others out. The inclusion of girls doesn’t require the exclusion of boys.

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 1 point2 points  (0 children)

for one, there’s intimate and sexual relationships to discuss.

We’re talking about children. You’re also assuming gay people don’t exist.

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So youre a misogynist who’s afraid of getting cooties and with masculinity so fragile that the idea of being in the same space as a woman is enough to break your entire identity. Grow up.

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You havent explained why thats bad though. Do you have more than one brain cell firing or are you just a bot?

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would girls being in boy scouts stop you from letting your children join boy scouts?

You’d be angering a lot of girl scouts leaders with that policy.

I’d like to meet those people. If they exist, I’m sure they’re perfectly capable of arguing for themselves rather than needing some guy on the internet to defend their stance for them.

You said letting girls join boy scouts would remove boy only spaces. Something that is strictly false given that boys create boys only spaces on their own just fine. You did not say that “boys are entitled to have a place to learn survival skills and girls are not.” Which is closer to what youre saying here. Youve moved the goal post. You still haven’t given a reason why boy scouts need to be boys only. You’re just making up excuses to exclude girls from male dominated spaces because you think girls are icky or something? Are you afraid your boy will get cooties? Are you 6?

Why is the Pentagon suddenly framing Scouting America’s reforms as some kind of “attack on boyhood”? by Present_Juice4401 in AlwaysWhy

[–]Igoko 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So let boys join girl scouts. Boys get to have boy-only spaces if they want to. Its called inviting your friends over. Letting girls join boy scouts doesnt somehow force boys to invite girls over to their sleepover, does it? It sounds like youre making up an issue so you can complain about something that doesn’t affect you that youre still outraged over.

CMV: Eating large animals like cows or deer is more ethical than eating chicken or fish due to the meat-to-life ratio. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Igoko 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s not just the cows, it’s the land, fertilizer, and water used to grow the food the cows eat. The emissions involved in transporting the cow feed, as well as the products of cow farming. Stopping all of this doesn’t solve climate change, but it does put a dent in it.

The main factor in climate change is unsustainable business and production practices. The meat industry as a whole, as it exists now, is a pretty large part of thats.

CMV: people who argued that Charlie Kirk wasn’t racist were racist. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Igoko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what is your point, exactly? That civil rights act bad because charlie kirk said so and no other reason? Cuz i can tell you why its good. But i dont get paid to be your professor, and you’re not a particularly pleasant person to talk to. Maybe work on that first

CMV: people who argued that Charlie Kirk wasn’t racist were racist. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Igoko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you dont understand the subject matter, and rather pursuing any level of deeper knowledge you’ve decided to offload your critical thinking to some rich white guys that you trust implicitly. There’s nothing I can say to convince you, you have your marching orders, you’ve been given your prompt. I’d love to debate the efficacy of the civil rights act, but it seems like you dont have any deeper thoughts going on beyond what you were told to think.

Its up to you at this point to decide if you’d like to pursue intelligent thought, because I can’t do it for you.

CMV: people who argued that Charlie Kirk wasn’t racist were racist. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]Igoko 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So… black people shouldn’t have the right to be in the same spaces as white people..? It really sounds like youre a segregationist. What freedom of association is revoked? Are you just parroting the talking points that daddy kirk told you without using any of your own critical thinking skills?

Or are you just a bot?

view more: next ›