WOW

she just calls him a hurrensohn right. any other context ??

nope, just her insulting oleg

Kinda hot when she steps up to beat him getting knocked down exposing her panties.

i want to fuck her

same thing once happened to me in school, some stacey found it funny to annoy me while sitting behind me. after few useless warnings i turned and slapped her in the face, she started to cry and to call teacher to punish me, but i was hero of the day, for the first time entire class was on my side

and everyone clapped, right? you were in the wrong unless she slapped you first

t. woman

it doesn't matter if a woman or a man was slapped, it's wrong to attack anyone; unless they attack you first - then you can and should retaliate (example: OP's vidrel)

Excessive retaliation isn't self defence. She posed no threat clearly.

 

Ironically if she was a bydlo policeman, she would pose a threat, but he would be arrested.

retaliation isn't always about self defense, but I agree with you that it should be proportionate

bullies always deserve to be beaten, especially if they bully bernd

She hangs around neuegermans and gets what she deserves, nothing special. It can be avoided by not hanging around neuegermans.

very wrong

i would have raped her

 

t. aryan

*you would have filmed with your phone and jacked off while a neuegerman raped her

Das rite, sisiboi g*rmoids would lick her feet if she slapped them

you are a sissy

she was pinching me in unfriendly way

Damn she's sexy :P

She's obviously a turksmell herself. So it's just turks doing turkish things among other turks.

looks german to me

I love to see women being beaten or abused.

She talks like a turk and acts like a turk. She just dyed her black hair blonde.

She deserve it, you cannot give her the privilege of doing what she wants just for being a woman. Unfortunately, women today believe they are superior because we take great care of them.

Get over negro the truth is that a woman life is more important than a man life.

no, it's not; you're just brainwashed by patriarchy

t. reddit

I dont think so, but its clear that for the society women has more privileges than men.

Take the example of Ukraine, the men to the trenches and the women to Poland.

 

The common man is replaceable.

you know why things are this way? I'll give you a hint: it starts with "p" and ends with "atriarchy"

 

women have their bodily autonomy taken away and men get drafted (which - depending how you look at it - is also a violation of bodily autonomy), does that trade off seem fair to you? why do we need to compare who has it worse instead of trying to make things better for everyone? first step to do so it to stop saying shit like "woman life is more important than a man life" - because it absolutely isn't and we shouldn't be perpetuating that kind of thinking

what youre is mentally retarded.

women can have babies therefore their worth is automatically higher than someone who cannot bear a child ya dingus

i agree that men aren't worth less but comparing the ability/the curse of pregnancy to being drafted and perhaps die for putin makes no sense

 

it's apples and pears

thank you for your input

 

and why is that? why do we, as a species, need to procreate? is it because the society will collapse if there are no new slaves?

 

yeah, I agree, what I was trying to say is that ranting about women's privileges makes no sense when they still have no basic rights in many parts of the world (and the rights that they do have they had to fight for, e.g. the right to vote)

I am not thinking about society and such as a whole, I am referring exclusively to the concept that someone who is capable of bearing a child, someone who has the ability to create another human being, is automatically considered to be of higher worth than someone who is unable to.

Think about crisis situations where it's life or death, say what happened in titanic, women and children always got on the boats meanwhile adult men for the most part were left behind and given lower priorities than women and children. It's pretty simple logic, if you have the ability to create a human then you are always going to be of higher worth than someone who can't.

okay, but why do you think the ability to produce a human is so valuable?

Why wouldn't it be valuable? Everything that we enjoy on a regular basis is made by people, hence the ability to create more people is considered something to be valuable. The entire process of giving birth is extremely valuable, society as a whole functions on the merit that people die and new people are born to take their places. If nobody was born then the society would collapse overtime, humans are the most valuable form of resource available in this world given their potential to achieve things that benefit everyone around them.

Now, you could argue that due to the sheer amount of people that are alive today could mean that the overall value of a single individual has lowered due to it, and it would probably make a lot of sense, but I am feeling here that you are just somewhat cynical and don't like humans very much, thus giving the thought of creating new humans a somewhat negative relation.

well, I guess you got me there, because I don't think society collapsing and humans dying out would be a bad thing and I also think that it's wrong to create a human without their consent (which is impossible to obtain beforehand); maybe I'm just a bitter old fart

 

bonus question: is worth of human life quantifiable? is life of a renowned music composer worth more than life of a waste collector person? it's a slippery slope

 

oh, and what if a woman can but doesn't want to bear children? is her life worth more or less then a man's? do we judge based on abilities alone or do actions factor in somewhere?

Pregnancy is not "creating people", it's just feeding and sheltering, no different from childrearing that happens outside the womb. But ofc it's true that only womyn can do it. But anyway, children are their own creators, they make themselves with their own genes with materials provided to them by their parents

A person's worth can take many different shapes and forms, but overall the rule of thumb as to how much a person is worth can be said that it depends on the amount of potential someone has to contribute something positive to society. As in, the main thing that defines someone's worth, is the ability to influence other people with what they are able to provide. Generally it can be said that the ability to contribute being how much a person is worth, could be potentially a very rigid form of determining how much someone is worth, but the general consensus of someone being successful in society is normally measured by not only just the individual's potential, intelligence and so forth, but also how it was applied in said person's life, which could in turn translate into what the common man refers to as success. That being said, however, there are still cases where a person has managed to influence society as a whole, while still not being considered conventionally successful by others. Success implies both being able to contribute meaningful things, but also the very impact someone has had. It could also be measured by the amount of money a person manages to make. There are many contributing factors related to an individual's overall worth and success in society. But in my own personal opinion, someone who is successful is someone who manages to earn an above average salary, while also contributing meaningful things to society.

I would say that it's based on the ability, the woman in question doesn't necessarily have to be forced to have children in order for her worth to be determined, the mere possibility of pregnancy alone defines her worth. In theory such a person's worth should, and I am putting emphasis on should, be lowered to that of a man, but that is not the way things work. There's also the entire concept behind men being defensive of women, taking care of them and such, this is also related to the fragility that women display. I think a contributing factor to this would be that the most relevant people in society are male, therefore some of the rules society is made up of, some of the tendencies displayed in the mental aspect of how it functions, could be attributed to an idea that if society had been a human being, it would probably be a male. You could say that this is because of the patriarchy, but I think it goes deeper than that. It's autistic in nature, almost. And apparently a form of very logical and critical thinking, is a trait that males are on average most likely to manifest. Though not an exclusively male trait, it shows itself more often in males than females. Each sex have their own traits, society simply takes these traits into account and attempts to level the field given some of these qualities. Because men consider women to be fragile, society also fall victim to the same ideas. Society is just a set of autistic rules, but these rules are based around human behavior and qualities that present themselves in each person. It's all about the people that exist within society, society in itself is a living and breathing thing, things change often because people themselves also change. Things that once upon a time were considered logical and okay no longer are, because the people that exist within society have changed, society also changed with them. There's a mindset that many people have adopted, and wrongly, that society is some form of oppressing force that is designed to keep people down. While in reality, the only ones keeping eachother down are other humans. You can't blame your problems on society, because without humans then society wouldn't even exist to begin with.

it's interesting to see things from a different point of view; it certainly shows how much our opinions are shaped by our experiences

 

if we're judging people based on their contributions to society, then I'm going to assume that giving birth trumps anything else a woman could do (since, as you said, it's an ability unique to fertile women) - and if that is the case why not just say that women's sole purpose is having children? wouldn't that be a logical (and also very problematic) conclusion?

 

are women fragile, though? sure, on average they're physically weaker and smaller, but saying that they need to be protected and taken care of is inherently condescending; women aren't children and don't need to have men as their keepers. would you like to be looked down upon by a group of people who decided you're less capable? (btw I'm not saying you agree with that)