The final solution to the woman question

[DFENS]

Disclaimer: I do not advocate for violence and this solution requires none:

Originally God only created Adam. Eve was an afterthought because he needed a companion. Well, some would say the Eve experiment has failed so maybe we can abolish it.

To finally solve the woman question we could create android wives and distribute them freely to all men, and then research genetically engineering humans to be male only and reproduce humanity with artificial wombs. Over time, the current women would simply become obsolete and die out naturally (again without any violence done to any person).

 

[thenewhebbe]

What you are doing is blasthemy you are calling your god dumb

 

[DFENS]

What you are doing is blasthemy you are calling your god dumb

No because God Himself regretted creating whole humanity (men and women alike) due to our violence. Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

So the whole creation of humanity was basically a failure according to God Himself and in His mercy He constantly tried to find new solutions for us.

This was the reason God sent the Flood, but He saved Noah and his family to still give humanity another chance to exist (but under new rules which we are failing again).

We are all absolutely rotten creatures and only by mercy we still even exist.

 

[thenewhebbe]

No because God Himself regretted creating whole humanity due to our violence. Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

So the whole creation of humanity was basically a failure.

This was the reason God sent the Flood, but He saved Noah and his family to still give humanity another chance to exist (but under new rules which we are failing again).

We are all absolutely rotten creatures and only by mercy we still even exist.

So he is not all powerfull and all knowimg

 

[Deleted member 26116]

Violence is not inherently bad.

 

[DFENS]

So he is not all powerfull and all knowimg

Yes He is. He gave us free will on purpose so we could choose to relate to Him voluntarily and not as robots. It's like, what would you rather, have an AI girl call you handsome and kiss you because she was programmed to do so by yourself or have a sentient girl do that to you?

 

[Deleted member 14815]

Jfl this dude is an actual incel but they will group every user here under his viewpoint, its over for us

 

[Deleted member 19174]

I disagree

 

[DFENS]

Jfl this dude is an actual incel but they will group every user here under his viewpoint, its over for us

No, I'm not incel, I just propose some ideas for discussion. I personally do not advocate this solution.

 

[Deleted member 14815]

No, I'm not incel, I just propose some ideas for discussion. I personally do not advocate this solution.

Yeah I'm sure you don't. The idea of genetically engineering humans to be male-only and using artificial wombs to reproduce is still very much theoretical and may not be possible, safe, or ethical. Even if it were possible, it raises numerous ethical concerns regarding genetic manipulation and besides men and women need each anyway

 

[DFENS]

Yeah I'm sure you don't. The idea of genetically engineering humans to be male-only and using artificial wombs to reproduce is still very much theoretical and may not be possible, safe, or ethical. Even if it were possible, it raises numerous ethical concerns regarding genetic manipulation and besides men and women need each anyway

Yes, stuff like that is what I hoped this thread would bring forth. The ethics and safety are also why I don't advocate this, as well as unforseen physical consequences. But someone might bring up solutions to this.

I made this thread because people already propose many other solutions, which I'm tiring of hearing about and those solutions either require direct violence against women and/or incels, eugenics directed only towards men or they are short-sighted and never really solve anything permanently, so I suggest people get more creative instead of wasting time on promoting ideas that are even more unethical and cause direct harm to incels and men.

 

[thenewhebbe]

Yes He is. He gave us free will on purpose so we could choose to relate to Him voluntarily and not as robots. It's like, what would you rather, have an AI girl call you handsome and kiss you because she was programmed to do so by yourself or have a sentient girl do that to you?

He cant be if it was failure and it free will is a dumb concept

 

[DFENS]

He cant be if it was failure and it free will is a dumb concept

That's like saying every parent whose child turns bad was a bad failed parent. But that is demonstrably not true.

 

[thenewhebbe]

That's like saying every parent whose child turns bad was a bad failed parent. But that is demonstrably not true.

Complety not comparable our parents arent all knowing arent all powerfull and didnt cause everything. If they did it would be their failure

 

[Deleted member 14815]

Complety not comparable our parents arent all knowing arent all powerfull and didnt cause everything. If they did it would be their failure

The concept of free will is often criticized for being logically inconsistent. For instance, if all our choices are predetermined by external factors or our own biology, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. On the other hand, if we do have free will, then it is unclear how this can be reconciled with the deterministic laws of nature.

 

[DFENS]

Complety not comparable our parents arent all knowing arent all powerfull and didnt cause everything. If they did it would be their failure

There are many things parents can predict and yet choose to let the child decide himself and yet still we consider the parent good.

A parent must raise a child with a balance between free choice as well as protection. Only protection and prevention from turning bad we would consider evil (like the cases of parents who kept their child confined in a basement, many of them exactly used this argument of "protection").

The gospel of Jesus solves all this ultimately anyway: God let humans run wild temporarily and He knew we would do it, BUT this is not the end of the story. God in His mercy provided a real final solution, which was to save us through Jesus and give us eternal life ultimately saving us from our own evil. 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

So it's like if a father allowed his children to play alone knowing full well that they might fight and hurt each other, but then sending his oldest son to go in and teach them not to fight and healing their ouchies. The father could choose to ban his children from playing at all, but that would be evil as well (too restrictive) or he could not do anything at all and let them play the roughest games without a plan to relieve their ouchies (too neglectful).

My point is that this father COULD still be called good by society and the fight between the children is not caused by the father but by the kids themselves. So by saying that since God didn't prevent human evil entirely He is not good is false.

 

[DFENS]

The concept of free will is often criticized for being logically inconsistent. For instance, if all our choices are predetermined by external factors or our own biology, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. On the other hand, if we do have free will, then it is unclear how this can be reconciled with the deterministic laws of nature.

I don't believe in predeterminism and neither do all natural scientists

 

[_MVP_]

Top tier

 

[Deleted member 21735]

To finally solve the woman question we could create android wives and distribute them freely to all men

copium

 

[thenewhebbe]

There are many things parents can predict and yet choose to let the child decide himself and yet still we consider the parent good.

A parent must raise a child with a balance between free choice as well as protection. Only protection and prevention from turning bad we would consider evil (like the cases of parents who kept their child confined in a basement, many of them exactly used this argument of "protection").

The gospel of Jesus solves all this ultimately anyway: God let humans run wild temporarily and He knew we would do it, BUT this is not the end of the story. God in His mercy provided a real final solution, which was to save us through Jesus and give us eternal life ultimately saving us from our own evil. 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

So it's like if a father allowed his children to play alone knowing full well that they might fight and hurt each other, but then sending his oldest son to go in and teach them not to fight and healing their ouchies. The father could choose to ban his children from playing at all, but that would be evil as well (too restrictive) or he could not do anything at all and let them play the roughest games without a plan to relieve their ouchies (too neglectful).

My point is that this father COULD still be called good by society and the fight between the children is not caused by the father but by the kids themselves. So by saying that since God didn't prevent human evil entirely He is not good is false.

There are many things parents can predict and yet choose to let the child decide himself and yet still we consider the parent good.

A parent must raise a child with a balance between free choice as well as protection. Only protection and prevention from turning bad we would consider evil (like the cases of parents who kept their child confined in a basement, many of them exactly used this argument of "protection").

The gospel of Jesus solves all this ultimately anyway: God let humans run wild temporarily and He knew we would do it, BUT this is not the end of the story. God in His mercy provided a real final solution, which was to save us through Jesus and give us eternal life ultimately saving us from our own evil. 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

So it's like if a father allowed his children to play alone knowing full well that they might fight and hurt each other, but then sending his oldest son to go in and teach them not to fight and healing their ouchies. The father could choose to ban his children from playing at all, but that would be evil as well (too restrictive) or he could not do anything at all and let them play the roughest games without a plan to relieve their ouchies (too neglectful).

My point is that this father COULD still be called good by society and the fight between the children is not caused by the father but by the kids themselves. So by saying that since God didn't prevent human evil entirely He is not good is false.

I didnt attack your god for being evil or good i said your god cannot fail or make mistake if he does he is not all powerfull or all knowing

 

[thenewhebbe]

The concept of free will is often criticized for being logically inconsistent. For instance, if all our choices are predetermined by external factors or our own biology, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. On the other hand, if we do have free will, then it is unclear how this can be reconciled with the deterministic laws of nature.

Hard too see i belive in randomness and detirnism

 

[Primalsplit]

If you fucking retards can't even eat well, exercise enough times a week, groom well; how the hell do you expect to create AI robot girlfriends?