The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Albrenia]

He's not saying that he wants to be crucified, but rather he feels sometimes his sins should have garnered his death in the place of Jesus. I feel agony at my own sinfulness at times, when I think of what good Jesus has done in my life. And I am very lucky that He has blessed me as He has. But no, he's not saying he wishes to be crucified, if that's what you're thinking.

Just seems a little melodramatic, but thanks for clarifying for me.

[Ostroeuropa]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

[Stellar Colonies]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

More patriarchy, of course.

[Sundiata]

Judgemental? No, I definitely have my own sins to confess. There are times I think I should have suffered on that cross.

Well good for you, but the rest of us don't appreciate this, "you're soooo awful, but god loves you!" routine.

She's not awful, and if anyone knows the full extent of her loveliness it's God.

[Neanderthaland]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

I don't think that male suicide rates are the result of patriarchy, but I doubt global suicide rates conform neatly to "feminist influence" either.

From what I can see, the countries with the lowest suicide rates seem to be mostly tropical island paradises and Islamic countries. The former makes a bit of intuitive sense. Not sure why Islamic countries have lower suicide rates, but I doubt it has much to do with feminism since other countries with a minimal feminist influence seem to have very high suicide rates (looking at you Russia.) Looking at suicide rates as a function of gender doesn't reveal much clearly, except that ex-Soviet men are far more likely to kill themselves then ex-Soviet women.

[Neanderthaland]

Well good for you, but the rest of us don't appreciate this, "you're soooo awful, but god loves you!" routine.

She's not awful, and if anyone knows the full extent of her loveliness it's God.

You can't have your cake and eat it to on this one.

[Ostroeuropa]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

More patriarchy, of course.

It's feminist theory being built around women rationalizing and making excuses for gynocentrism, female privilege, misandry, and a lack of empathy for men. |The "But that's because of patriarchy" response to high male suicide rates in the west wasn't sincere sociology, but a knee-jerk rejection of facts which threaten their worldview, even when there's no basis for believing them. By blaming patriarchy feminists can continue to impose a framework that privileges women and doesn't examine male issues sincerely, since it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

All sexism is due to patriarchy. (Feminist starting point.).
>Insert multi-step excuse making, sophistry, and rationalizations. (Feminist "Theory").
Therefore we need to empower women. (Feminist conclusion.).

This is their ideological framework and their praxis as a movement. If it turns out women are too empowered and too privileged in a particular area and THAT is the cause of the sexism, feminists are not equipped to properly engage with reality. Their ideology presupposes the outcome and demands they make excuses and rationalize away inconsistencies. So if you show a feminist a situation where women have more privilege and power than men, they are not able to grapple with that and say "Men need to be empowered.". Instead they will desperately make excuses and try and find a rationalization for why women need to be empowered. If it's womens empowerment causing the sexist outcome, the situation gets worse.

Like if the feminist has 5 balls and the man has 3, the feminist is brainwashed into thinking "Four of my balls must not be real." is a reasonable way to behave, right up until they take one from the man "So we both have two". Then the feminist has 6, the man has 1. But this is still a sexist situation, so the feminist simply repeats the process. Feminism is a rejection of reality in favor of unfounded and zealous belief in particular praxis.
(Empowering women is always the solution and if it doesn't seem like it, you need to look harder. The problem is always patriarchy.).

Like "If we give more money to black people, that will always be social justice and lead us closer to equality regardless of societal context or how long we've been engaged in that behavior, and regardless of how poor white people might *seem*, because the reason white people are poor is rich white peoples fault, and obviously giving black people more money will fix that and make poor white people better off".

The problem is that feminists don't seem to accept that it's in womens interests to never help men and to continue to blame mens problems on other men, as well as to willfully interpret all sexist issues in a way that casts it as a womens issue requiring further empowerment of women, since this allows women to gaslight men and seize more power for themselves. Even if the mens problems arise from the feminist framework being applied, since the feminists can simply deny that's the case, blame patriarchy, and continue to seize more power for themselves.

Feminism is nothing more than female-conservatism. "The reason you are poor is that the government is too socialist, so i'm going to cut taxes. If you disagree, well, you just don't understand economics.".
Ofcourse it's in womens interests to believe that, so it's very difficult to get them to look beyond their own narrow self-interest and how convenient it would be that "Well it works for me and it should work for men too, provided they aren't bad men who suck.". This is why there's such hatred and vitriol for male anti-feminists. It's the same conservative mindset that causes people to lash out at the poor for being "Lazy" and so on.

The system is working fine and any corruptions of it arise from it not being suited enough to MY needs and what suits ME and the perpetuation of MY privilege. If you weren't such a subhuman, the system would work for you too. Either you're a disgusting degenerate subhuman, or the solution is to rig things even more in my favor by scrapping roadblocks to "Progress".<- Feminists and Conservatives everywhere. The feminist up and decides we need more gynocentric shite and less "Misogyny", and the conservative rigs things in favor of the rich and big business.

Any man or poor person this doesn't benefit, well that's either their personal failing as a degenerate subhuman who should just fucking die (Look at the hatred many feminists spew and tell me they aren't itching to say this), or it's just further evidence "Taxes are too high, we've got workers who can't afford to eat. That's the governments fault, we need to slash regulations and cut taxes more.".

Feminism is just a series of rationalizations and excuses to perpetuate female privilege and power. Blaming patriarchy for male suicides is their version of some conservative waffling about how a the(Non-existant except in their delusional worldview) socialist/patriarchal government is making people kill themselves, then coming up with excuses for why that must be true, no matter how removed from reality they are.

The difference being, conservatism is classist, and feminism is sexist.
This is where i'd throw out that "The alt-right playbook" thing and point out; So long as it's still *technically* possible for the poor to become rich, A Fascist much eventually discard it in favor of a hierarchical model identical to it, but based on immutable characteristics where movement between ranks is impossible.

But Forsher thinks i'm insane for calling feminists "The same substance" as Nazi's in all but name.

[Ostroeuropa]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

I don't think that male suicide rates are the result of patriarchy, but I doubt global suicide rates conform neatly to "feminist influence" either.

From what I can see, the countries with the lowest suicide rates seem to be mostly tropical island paradises and Islamic countries. The former makes a bit of intuitive sense. Not sure why Islamic countries have lower suicide rates, but I doubt it has much to do with feminism since other countries with a minimal feminist influence seem to have very high suicide rates (looking at you Russia.) Looking at suicide rates as a function of gender doesn't reveal much clearly, except that ex-Soviet men are far more likely to kill themselves then ex-Soviet women.

The suicide rate in Russia is more even between men and women however, such that you can deduce the high suicide rate is for non-sexist factors.
The countries with highly sexist suicide rates are feminist countries.

[Neanderthaland]

I don't think that male suicide rates are the result of patriarchy, but I doubt global suicide rates conform neatly to "feminist influence" either.

From what I can see, the countries with the lowest suicide rates seem to be mostly tropical island paradises and Islamic countries. The former makes a bit of intuitive sense. Not sure why Islamic countries have lower suicide rates, but I doubt it has much to do with feminism since other countries with a minimal feminist influence seem to have very high suicide rates (looking at you Russia.) Looking at suicide rates as a function of gender doesn't reveal much clearly, except that ex-Soviet men are far more likely to kill themselves then ex-Soviet women.

The suicide rate in Russia is more even between men and women however, such that you can deduce the high suicide rate is for non-sexist factors.
The countries with highly sexist suicide rates are feminist countries.

The countries with the highest male to female ratio in suicide rates:
1. Ukraine
2. Seychelles
3. Lithuania
4. Slovakia
5. Poland
6. Qatar
7. Georgia
8. Russia
9. Belarus
10. Moldova

I don't see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

[Ostroeuropa]

The suicide rate in Russia is more even between men and women however, such that you can deduce the high suicide rate is for non-sexist factors.
The countries with highly sexist suicide rates are feminist countries.

The countries with the highest male to female ratio in suicide rates:
1. Ukraine
2. Seychelles
3. Lithuania
4. Slovakia
5. Poland
6. Qatar
7. Georgia
8. Russia
9. Belarus
10. Moldova

I don't see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

Idk man. If your argument is; "Whereever we've let Marxists have sway on culture, men start killing themselves way more than women", that kind of doesn't give the impression you might think it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_ ... Soviet_era

It just suggests that given long enough with western feminists polluting culture, we'll be in the same boat.

Though the prevailing Soviet ideology stressed gender equality in labor and education, and many Soviet women held jobs and advanced degrees, they did not participate in core political roles and institutions. Above the middle levels, political and economic leaders were overwhelmingly male. While propaganda claimed, accurately, that more women sat in the Supreme Soviet than in most democratic countries' legislative bodies combined, only two women, Yekaterina Furtseva and (in its last year of existence) Galina Semyonova, were ever members of the party's Politburo, in practice the country's real leadership.

Sound familiar?

Patriarchy, I guess. (Must be. Couldn't be that it's in womens interests to join a womens rights lobby more so than be a politician, and they'll gain unilateral influence over society by doing so. That would mean feminism bad, and we can't acknowledge that.).


I can guarantee if you if you offered male supremacists a unilateral veto on any female candidates, they would happily cede the upper echelons of politics to women too. It's easy to find class traitors, and then you can just gaslight people and say "But look, all the major figures are class traitors, so you must be imagining things.".

[Purple Rats]

Well the men in ex-soviet countries don't really have such a great time either: forced to go to army (lot of guys don't want to), there is still high pressure from society that "man has to be head of a family", this does not only bring women down, but also stess lot of guys out, as they might think less of about themselves if they are not able to be the head-of-a-family.

"Men need to be strong", "don't cry / whine like a girl"... so if a guy has depression, they quite often are ashamed to talk about it, so they suffer alone. Which, in ex soviet countries, as I have seen, also leads to massive alcohol consuming.

These are just some reason, why I think suicide rate in these countries for men could be higher than for women.

[Riria]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

This question actually sounded quite interesting to me (not in a cultural sense, but rather in a logical sense) so I'll give it a go at exploring possible answers.

As a preamble, this question is already loaded, in two ways. Firstly, in the sense that it assumes patriarchy exists. Secondly, in the sense that it assumes that the relationship between amount of feminist influence and male suicide rates is causal instead of correlative. So to stay true to its context I too will take those two things as givens or axioms. (for what it's worth, I don't think that Ostroeuropa intentionally loaded his question, given that the two unspoken assumptions he made actually support opposite sides of the debate, so I'm not being intellectually dishonest by approaching the question as it is instead of trying to sanitize it beforehand)

Alright, so now let's go to constructing a hypothetical statement that would be a valid answer in the frame constructed by the question. There are a couple ways of doing this.

The first, and, probably, most intuitive one would be "Because feminism doesn't work". The original answer, if true, would also imply the truth of the statement that "Feminist influence doesn't work.". However, the workability expressed through "doesn't work" in this context is congruent with feminist ideology as well as mainstream ethical precepts (in other words, both the average person and the average feminist arguing in good faith would agree that high male suicide rates are bad). Therefore, the statement "Feminist influence doesn't work." is in an equivalence relationship with "Feminist influence is bad.". However, it does not logically follow that there's any equivalence relationship between "Feminist influence doesn't work." and "Feminism (as a set of descriptive rather than prescriptive claims about society) is bad." In fact, it nearly does the opposite, by giving a conditional point of evidence in favor of feminism working as intended, through the very fact that "Feminist influence is bad.", in the context of "Feminism doesn't work." being true, also stays true under the core tenets of feminism itself. To put it in another more informal way, you would only be proving that feminism is garbage at solving problems, not that it's garbage at identifying them. The original answer, if false, would imply the truth of the statement "Feminist influence doesn't care about reducing the male suicide rates.". As, from the framework of the givens, "The proportionality relationship between amount of feminist influence and male suicide rates is causal." then what we have on our hands is a modus ponens type syllogism that concludes with "Feminism enhances at least one of the products of the patriarchy.", which is equivalent to "Feminist action is bad for at least one of the products of the patriarchy.". We can construct another syllogism using that conclusion as a premise as well as the premise that "Feminism seeks the reduction of the products of the patriarchy." to conclude that "Feminists must agree that at least one of the products of the patriarchy is not solvable through feminist action.". To put it in another more informal way, it's in the best interest of feminist core beliefs that at least one (and probably more) of the products of the patriarchy be addressed by individuals or groups of non-feminists (kmon MRA's my bois you got a place in the world).

The second answer would be that "A little feminist influence is better than a lot." by morphing "without a lot" into "a little". If true, this as a premise combined with the modal version of the Law of Identity (aka the statement "Feminism follows the precepts of feminism.") would imply the conclusion "Feminism inherently imposes a cap on feminist influence.". Moreover, as the status quo already goes against feminist ideology, all of this implies that "Feminism seeks to diminish feminist influence right now." To put it in another more informal way, any feminist arguing that we're not there yet is arguing in bad faith. If false, together with the second axiom, it would imply that the statement "Feminism seeks the increase in male suicide rates." is true. However, since "Male suicide rates are a product of the patriarchy" is also true, we reach a contradiction. So the second answer cannot be validly false. But we have already proven it can be true. Therefore, it is a tautology.

In conclusion, neither manner of answering the question nor truth value of said answers could be used as arguments against the existence of feminism, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a feminist wouldn't be happy about any of the scenarios I presented.

Now, it is very likely that feminists would utilize a dialetheism-based logic instead of modal logic, which would allow them to disagree with my conclusions without being intellectually dishonest, but still, this whole thing was fun to explore. Cheers.

[Mettaton-EX]

We the men in ex-soviet countries don't really have such a great time either: forced to go to army (lot of guys don't want to), there is still high pressure from society that "man has to be head of a family", this does not only bring women down, but also stess lot of guys out, as they might think less of about themselves if they are not able to be the head-of-a-family.

"Men need to be strong", "don't cry / whine like a girl"... so if a guy has depression, they quite often are ashamed to talk about it, so they suffer alone. Which, in ex soviet countries, as I have seen, also leads to massive alcohol consuming.

These are just some reason, why I think suicide rate in these countries for men could be higher than for women.

that's patriarchy

[Purple Rats]

We the men in ex-soviet countries don't really have such a great time either: forced to go to army (lot of guys don't want to), there is still high pressure from society that "man has to be head of a family", this does not only bring women down, but also stess lot of guys out, as they might think less of about themselves if they are not able to be the head-of-a-family.

"Men need to be strong", "don't cry / whine like a girl"... so if a guy has depression, they quite often are ashamed to talk about it, so they suffer alone. Which, in ex soviet countries, as I have seen, also leads to massive alcohol consuming.

These are just some reason, why I think suicide rate in these countries for men could be higher than for women.

that's patriarchy

I edited my post, I wanted to write "well", but for some reason it only came out as "we" And I am not a quy.

And yes, I agree with you, that really is patriarchy, I just felt it needs to be written out longer way, as explanation exactly why it is like that, not just labeling issues.

[Mettaton-EX]

that's patriarchy

I edited my post, I wanted to write "well", but for some reason it only came out as "we" And I am not a quy.

And yes, I agree with you, that really is patriarchy, I just felt it needs to be written out longer way, as explanation exactly why it is like that, not just labeling issues.

very reasonable

[Sundiata]

She's not awful, and if anyone knows the full extent of her loveliness it's God.

You can't have your cake and eat it to on this one.

If she chooses to reciprocate God's love, her past with pornography does not exclude her from the kingdom of heaven.

The Catholic Church is a friend of women.

[Ostroeuropa]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

This question actually sounded quite interesting to me (not in a cultural sense, but rather in a logical sense) so I'll give it a go at exploring possible answers.

As a preamble, this question is already loaded, in two ways. Firstly, in the sense that it assumes patriarchy exists. Secondly, in the sense that it assumes that the relationship between amount of feminist influence and male suicide rates is causal instead of correlative. So to stay true to its context I too will take those two things as givens or axioms. (for what it's worth, I don't think that Ostroeuropa intentionally loaded his question, given that the two unspoken assumptions he made actually support opposite sides of the debate, so I'm not being intellectually dishonest by approaching the question as it is instead of trying to sanitize it beforehand)

Alright, so now let's go to constructing a hypothetical statement that would be a valid answer in the frame constructed by the question. There are a couple ways of doing this.

The first, and, probably, most intuitive one would be "Because feminism doesn't work". The original answer, if true, would also imply the truth of the statement that "Feminist influence doesn't work.". However, the workability expressed through "doesn't work" in this context is congruent with feminist ideology as well as mainstream ethical precepts (in other words, both the average person and the average feminist arguing in good faith would agree that high male suicide rates are bad). Therefore, the statement "Feminist influence doesn't work." is in an equivalence relationship with "Feminist influence is bad.". However, it does not logically follow that there's any equivalence relationship between "Feminist influence doesn't work." and "Feminism (as a set of descriptive rather than prescriptive claims about society) is bad." In fact, it nearly does the opposite, by giving a conditional point of evidence in favor of feminism working as intended, through the very fact that "Feminist influence is bad.", in the context of "Feminism doesn't work." being true, also stays true under the core tenets of feminism itself. To put it in another more informal way, you would only be proving that feminism is garbage at solving problems, not that it's garbage at identifying them. The original answer, if false, would imply the truth of the statement "Feminist influence doesn't care about reducing the male suicide rates.". As, from the framework of the givens, "The proportionality relationship between amount of feminist influence and male suicide rates is causal." then what we have on our hands is a modus ponens type syllogism that concludes with "Feminism enhances at least one of the products of the patriarchy.", which is equivalent to "Feminist action is bad for at least one of the products of the patriarchy.". We can construct another syllogism using that conclusion as a premise as well as the premise that "Feminism seeks the reduction of the products of the patriarchy." to conclude that "Feminists must agree that at least one of the products of the patriarchy is not solvable through feminist action.". To put it in another more informal way, it's in the best interest of feminist core beliefs that at least one (and probably more) of the products of the patriarchy be addressed by individuals or groups of non-feminists (kmon MRA's my bois you got a place in the world).

The second answer would be that "A little feminist influence is better than a lot." by morphing "without a lot" into "a little". If true, this as a premise combined with the modal version of the Law of Identity (aka the statement "Feminism follows the precepts of feminism.") would imply the conclusion "Feminism inherently imposes a cap on feminist influence.". Moreover, as the status quo already goes against feminist ideology, all of this implies that "Feminism seeks to diminish feminist influence right now." To put it in another more informal way, any feminist arguing that we're not there yet is arguing in bad faith. If false, together with the second axiom, it would imply that the statement "Feminism seeks the increase in male suicide rates." is true. However, since "Male suicide rates are a product of the patriarchy" is also true, we reach a contradiction. So the second answer cannot be validly false. But we have already proven it can be true. Therefore, it is a tautology.

In conclusion, neither manner of answering the question nor truth value of said answers could be used as arguments against the existence of feminism, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a feminist wouldn't be happy about any of the scenarios I presented.

Now, it is very likely that feminists would utilize a dialetheism-based logic instead of modal logic, which would allow them to disagree with my conclusions without being intellectually dishonest, but still, this whole thing was fun to explore. Cheers.

I'd mostly agree with all that, however I'd take issue with your offering of the option that feminism is good at identifying problems and bad at solving them. It's also possible that feminism is a process of rationalizing problems.

That is, feminism cannot identify problems, only interpret them. This is also fairly intuitive. Feminist theory does not so much cause information to arise, merely interpret that information through a particular lens. If that is the case (as I contend), then feminism is not only garbage at solving problems, but does not particularly identify them either. Instead it misframes them by misinterpreting those problems and that is *why* it is garbage.

It's less;

"Dogism is good at identifying dogs, but bad at capturing them."

and more;

"Dogism suggests any four legged animal that meows is a dog, and says we need to put bacon in a cage to trap it, though other schools suggest other types of meat".

Dogism can be about catching dogs and consider it of the highest moral importance, but that is not the totality of dogism. Also within it is a suggestion of what a dog is, and how to catch it.

So Dogism doesn't work, and is bad even by it's own measure, because it is bad at interpreting information to understand what a dog is.

When you confront the dogist, affective override causes them to throw tantrums and hurl accusations about how you want dogs roaming the streets and that's why you oppose dogism.

This reveals the other part of the ideology;

Dogism suggests any four legged animal that meows is a dog, various schools suggest particular meats to put in a cage to trap those dogs when you see them, and anyone who opposed this doesn't understand dogism, or is actively evil.

We can conclude that, if we don't want stray dogs around and consider it bad, and if we take the dogists as operating in good faith that they think stray dogs are bad, that dogism is bad. Because they don't know what the fuck a dog is.

[Neanderthaland]

The countries with the highest male to female ratio in suicide rates:
1. Ukraine
2. Seychelles
3. Lithuania
4. Slovakia
5. Poland
6. Qatar
7. Georgia
8. Russia
9. Belarus
10. Moldova

I don't see it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate

Idk man. If your argument is; "Whereever we've let Marxists have sway on culture, men start killing themselves way more than women", that kind of doesn't give the impression you might think it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_ ... Soviet_era

It just suggests that given long enough with western feminists polluting culture, we'll be in the same boat.

Though the prevailing Soviet ideology stressed gender equality in labor and education, and many Soviet women held jobs and advanced degrees, they did not participate in core political roles and institutions. Above the middle levels, political and economic leaders were overwhelmingly male. While propaganda claimed, accurately, that more women sat in the Supreme Soviet than in most democratic countries' legislative bodies combined, only two women, Yekaterina Furtseva and (in its last year of existence) Galina Semyonova, were ever members of the party's Politburo, in practice the country's real leadership.

Sound familiar?

Patriarchy, I guess. (Must be. Couldn't be that it's in womens interests to join a womens rights lobby more so than be a politician, and they'll gain unilateral influence over society by doing so. That would mean feminism bad, and we can't acknowledge that.).


I can guarantee if you if you offered male supremacists a unilateral veto on any female candidates, they would happily cede the upper echelons of politics to women too. It's easy to find class traitors, and then you can just gaslight people and say "But look, all the major figures are class traitors, so you must be imagining things.".

My argument isn't anything, other than your statements suggesting that feminism causes male suicide, and later that "the suicide rate in Russia is more even between men and women," are both completely wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

We the men in ex-soviet countries don't really have such a great time either: forced to go to army (lot of guys don't want to), there is still high pressure from society that "man has to be head of a family", this does not only bring women down, but also stess lot of guys out, as they might think less of about themselves if they are not able to be the head-of-a-family.

"Men need to be strong", "don't cry / whine like a girl"... so if a guy has depression, they quite often are ashamed to talk about it, so they suffer alone. Which, in ex soviet countries, as I have seen, also leads to massive alcohol consuming.

These are just some reason, why I think suicide rate in these countries for men could be higher than for women.

that's patriarchy

Why do you think that is patriarchy when it arises from womens behavior toward male infants, and is worsened by a lack of male influence? Especially when it's due to feminists that mothers are afforded custody of children, which traditional societies usually afforded to men, and especially as traditional societies would not countenance single motherhood?

[Neanderthaland]

You can't have your cake and eat it to on this one.

If she chooses to reciprocate God's love, her past with pornography does not exclude her from the kingdom of heaven.

The Catholic Church is a friend of women.

So friendly, that it tells women who don't do what it wants that they need to beg forgiveness. Like you just did. Even if they don't think they did anything wrong.

That's not friendly. That's being judgmental with a smile on your face.

[Ayro Va]

Feminism is based.

[Fahran]

If male suicide rates are a result of patriarchy, why are suicide rates lower for men in countries without as much feminist influence?

Quite a few reasons probably. I actually don't think the presence of patriarchal institutions increases or decreases the likelihood that men will commit suicide on its own. That has a lot more to do with social alienation, lack of community, and various other factors. There's a reason suicide and depression are largely seen as problems that afflict more developed countries.

[Fahran]

That's not friendly. That's being judgmental with a smile on your face.

G-d IS a judge, right?

[Neanderthaland]

That's not friendly. That's being judgmental with a smile on your face.

G-d IS a judge, right?

God isn't writing posts in this forum.

[New haven america]

G-d IS a judge, right?

God isn't writing posts in this forum.

God also isn't God's actual name.