/lit/ - Literature

>>13304579
>>13304579
>i take action because I want to take that action.
And that's exactly what I said.
You (all women really) are so irrational you've replied with my same conclusion but still say I am wrong because you reduce everything to what your emotion wants to be fulfilled(as I stated), which in the case of your last reply to me, is just to not give me any credance.

Your own wish (emotion) is the basis of your justification
>Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi
and like you already exposed, any concept we throw around to "prove you wrong" can't because the use of your wishes as an axiom make our arguments inconsecuential ( it's all social constructs lmao) as a critique to your actions.
Women only think of their actions through emotional concepts; that doesn't make you less intelligent or capable than men(though most of you are) but dangerously influenced to act socially against your own interest at heart.
Your emotional attitude would not be possible if you recieved a negative emotional reaction from society around you to act as a counter balance to emotional imput being inserted into your cognition by third parties.

Your whole emotional attitude is a consecuence of the Cultural and Societal degeneration and destruction that promotes itself through the influence of those in the position to steer Culture to their whim for their private interests( Hollywood, CIA, Trilateral Comission, International Adverstisement Holdings, etc).
Western Society is no longer in control of what Culture (we)society produces, consumes and/or critiques.