Blackpill EntitlementPill & EXPELincelsPill: Why are good looking criminals entitled to sex but we aren't?

FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. Their repetition ad nauseum prescribing us to do x,y and z is indicative of them telling us to earn it like its something that's guaranteed. Then they backtrack when it's inconvenient after their useless advice fails. That's what you're not taking into consideration. So if sex isn't something you can earn then what's the problem with us carrying on the way we are knowing that all our attempts meet in failure? In effect they want us to be slaves. Silent and docile.

"Repetition ad nauseum" is not a guarantee. And saying "I never said it was a guarantee" isn't backtracking, if that's what you're saying "backtracking" is. You MIGHT achieve sex if you improve yourself. MIGHT. No one said you definitely would. Just that you stand a better chance if you improve yourself, compared to lying down and rotting. And if you take your argument to Xpel Incels, he's gonna say the same. That I will guarantee. He's gonna say "I never guaranteed anything and I never backtracked."

2. These very same donors are likely to say Trans women are women. So that point is mute. They're actions in donating money based on the back of the woman saying she needs a vagina for sex is indicative of that. A woman is entitled to sex a man isn't by the looks of things.

4. See point 2. She wanted a vagina for sex. Others donated on that point. If they believe a man with a cock can be a woman or a castrated man be a woman then your point is mute about abnormality.

I think I'm explaining this wrong, so I'm gonna give you a question to focus on and answer.

Starving Guy wants a fish. He says he wants it because he thinks it tastes like vagina and he wants to taste vagina. He tells me this explicitly. Is it not possible for me to give him a fish NOT because I want to help him achieve his dream of tasting an approximation of vagina, but because he's starving and I believe he needs to eat some quality protein? Is it not possible for me to have my own reasons for giving him the fish, ignoring ENTIRELY his reasons for wanting the fish?

3. Nope. If a penis is too small then its non functioning for sex and reproduction. You're going to extremes.

I'm not going to extremes because "non-functioning" is an absolute. The "non" prefix stipulates it. It must not function at all. It must not achieve its goal. Even if the woman doesn't enjoy it, it the penis penetrates her and deposits semen into her, that's function.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
"Repetition ad nauseum" is not a guarantee. And saying "I never said it was a guarantee" isn't backtracking, if that's what you're saying "backtracking" is. You MIGHT achieve sex if you improve yourself. MIGHT. No one said you definitely would. Just that you stand a better chance if you improve yourself, compared to lying down and rotting. And if you take your argument to Xpel Incels, he's gonna say the same. That I will guarantee. He's gonna say "I never guaranteed anything and I never backtracked."

1. They are backtracking
2. If you did everything in your power and the criteria that you were told to secure something say a job or sex in this instance. You didn't get it. Everyone told you that if you earn that job by doing x,y and z. Would you not feel entitled to that?
3. If nothing is an absolute then why should we take their advice when it doesn't apply to us?
4. Would these SJWs say the same to a poor starving jobless man who fulfilled the criteria but getting sold out none the less?
5. If their useless advice is not a guarantee of us getting sex then what's the issue with us being like we are now? Would you play a rigged and loaded game? Would he?

I think I'm explaining this wrong, so I'm gonna give you a question to focus on and answer.

Starving Guy wants a fish. He says he wants it because he thinks it tastes like vagina and he wants to taste vagina. He tells me this explicitly. Is it not possible for me to give him a fish NOT because I want to help him achieve his dream of tasting an approximation of vagina, but because he's starving and I believe he needs to eat some quality protein? Is it not possible for me to have my own reasons for giving him the fish, ignoring ENTIRELY his reasons for wanting the fish?

1. Starvation is different from sexual fulfilment as SJWs are quick to point out.
2. You never addressed the Trans issue that the very same people would come out with regarding normality
3. You go according to what the woman says in this issue. She said she wanted a vagina for sex not normality

I'm not going to extremes because "non-functioning" is an absolute. The "non" prefix stipulates it. It must not function at all. It must not achieve its goal. Even if the woman doesn't enjoy it, it the penis penetrates her and deposits semen into her, that's function.

1. If the penis is too small to be able to do that then it's non functioning.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. They are backtracking

How are they backtracking? Because, again, "I never promised it was a guarantee" is not backtracking.

2. If you did everything in your power and the criteria that you were told to secure something say a job or sex in this instance. You didn't get it. Everyone told you that if you earn that job by doing x,y and z. Would you not feel entitled to that?

No one told you it was guaranteed. Just more likely. Unless you can show me where Xpel Incels said it was guaranteed.

4. Would these SJWs say the same to a poor starving jobless man who fulfilled the criteria but getting sold out none the less?

Yes they would. Granted, they probably care more about the poor starving jobless man, because it's easier to go without sex than it is to go without food. They would probably fight for the homeless man. But they would and could never make that man any guarantees about whether or not he's gonna stop being poor. And surely you know that. Use your brain. How can you absolutely guarantee someone that they'll stop being poor, or start having sex? You KNOW the world's problems aren't that easily solved. And to say "Well other people are saying they are easily solved" is disingenuous.

3. If nothing is an absolute then why should we take their advice when it doesn't apply to us?

5. If their useless advice is not a guarantee of us getting sex then what's the issue with us being like we are now? Would you play a rigged and loaded game? Would he?

Because "not a guarantee" doesn't mean it definitely won't happen either. The advice is based on what's more likely to work. Taking action, improving yourself, is seen as more likely to work than doing nothing about your situation. And you don't know that this advice won't work until you've tried it. So you can't say "It doesn't apply" until you've tried it and found that it doesn't.

No advice is a guarantee. You gotta know how asinine it sounds to ask "Why can't they guarantee me for sure that I'm gonna have sex?" Because the world doesn't work that way. Very little of anything in the world is guaranteed.

1. Starvation is different from sexual fulfilment as SJWs are quick to point out.

Fuck what the SJWs say, this is an allegory and you know that. Call it sex, call it food, it doesn't matter, deal with the allegory of someone needing something, giving a reason for it, and me giving them that thing but not for the reason they asked for. Is it possible?

2. You never addressed the Trans issue that the very same people would come out with regarding normality

I did. I said "Show me where these donators are saying that." Show me where you hearing these donators say things like "Women are entitled, but men are not."

3. You go according to what the woman says in this issue. She said she wanted a vagina for sex not normality

But what about the allegory I gave? Do you go according to what Starving Guy says, or can I have my own reasons for giving him a fish?

1. If the penis is too small to be able to do that then it's non functioning.

If it's too small. If it was that small, it would be actually non-functioning. Not just small. It wouldn't just be a vanity issue or a sexual satisfaction issue.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
How are they backtracking? Because, again, "I never promised it was a guarantee" is not backtracking.

1. Dictating to someone that they should do x,y and z with their doctrinal certainty. Then backtracking by saying "its not guaranteed"
2. They tell you to earn something by way of point 1 and then tell you that it's not guaranteed. That's cowardice.
3. They should stop telling us to improve ourselves after we've told them that we've done all things necessary AND HAVE A RIGHT TO MOAN VOCALLY ABOUT IT.


No one told you it was guaranteed. Just more likely. Unless you can show me where Xpel Incels said it was guaranteed.

1. See previous point.


Yes they would. Granted, they probably care more about the poor starving jobless man, because it's easier to go without sex than it is to go without food. They would probably fight for the homeless man. But they would and could never make that man any guarantees about whether or not he's gonna stop being poor. And surely you know that. Use your brain. How can you absolutely guarantee someone that they'll stop being poor, or start having sex? You KNOW the world's problems aren't that easily solved. And to say "Well other people are saying they are easily solved" is disingenuous.

1. No they wouldn't. They preach socialism and leftist crap. It's all virtue signaling for vanity, sanctimonious self righteous power grabbing.
2. Sex is on the maslow hierarchical needs. Threads here show that.
3. Mate I'm not the one preaching with the certainty they're doing. That's all.



Because "not a guarantee" doesn't mean it definitely won't happen either. The advice is based on what's more likely to work. Taking action, improving yourself, is seen as more likely to work than doing nothing about your situation. And you don't know that this advice won't work until you've tried it. So you can't say "It doesn't apply" until you've tried it and found that it doesn't.

1. None of that is assured. They've said it themselves.
2. Tell them to drop that mantra if they believe nothing is guaranteed.
3. They have to believe that we've done all that and stop saying we haven't if nothing is guaranteed. Can they stop that mantra then?


No advice is a guarantee. You gotta know how asinine it sounds to ask "Why can't they guarantee me for sure that I'm gonna have sex?" Because the world doesn't work that way. Very little of anything in the world is guaranteed.

1. See above points.

Fuck what the SJWs say, this is an allegory and you know that. Call it sex, call it food, it doesn't matter, deal with the allegory of someone needing something, giving a reason for it, and me giving them that thing but not for the reason they asked for. Is it possible?

1. She doesn't need a vagina. She can have anal/ oral or hand job sex.

I did. I said "Show me where these donators are saying that." Show me where you hearing these donators say things like "Women are entitled, but men are not."

1. They're going by her words of needing a vagina for sex. That's what she said she needed a vagina for. That's what the article says.
2. They wouldn't do that for a man.

But what about the allegory I gave? Do you go according to what Starving Guy says, or can I have my own reasons for giving him a fish?

1. Irrelevant.

If it's too small. If it was that small, it would be actually non-functioning. Not just small. It wouldn't just be a vanity issue or a sexual satisfaction issue.

1. Small is non functioning. Anything under 5.5 inches erect is non functioning and needs penis enlargement.

Thanks for the intellectual discussion but I honestly believe you're a Foid or Leftist feminist infiltrator.

Are you stupid son? @FrothySolutions

That's their modus operandi. Surely you must know that.
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. Dictating to someone that they should do x,y and z with their doctrinal certainty. Then backtracking by saying "its not guaranteed"

2. They tell you to earn something by way of point 1 and then tell you that it's not guaranteed. That's cowardice.

3. They should stop telling us to improve ourselves after we've told them that we've done all things necessary AND HAVE A RIGHT TO MOAN VOCALLY ABOUT IT.

No one's saying you don't have the right to be mad about working hard but failing. Not yet, anyway. What's being said here is that "No guarantees" is not backtracking nor is it cowardice. It's a basic fact of life.

It seems like you wanna frame this like you were promised something by somebody if you do something, you were told that people who do that thing are "entitled" to something, and were subsequently "cheated" when it didn't work out. But you weren't. You never got any guarantees, and that's something you gotta accept.


1. No they wouldn't. They preach socialism and leftist crap. It's all virtue signaling for vanity, sanctimonious self righteous power grabbing.

2. Sex is on the maslow hierarchical needs. Threads here show that.

3. Mate I'm not the one preaching with the certainty they're doing. That's all.


People throw Maslow around all the time. Fact is you will die without food. The elements will kill you without shelter. But I've been sexless all my life and I'm not dead yet. Maslow is something for the desperate to make excuses out of.

And they aren't preaching with any certainty. Again, no one made you any guarantees.

1. None of that is assured. They've said it themselves.

2. Tell them to drop that mantra if they believe nothing is guaranteed.

3. They have to believe that we've done all that and stop saying we haven't if nothing is guaranteed. Can they stop that mantra then?


What mantra? "Improve yourself?" So just don't ever try something unless it's a guaranteed certainty that it'll work? You're not saying that, are you?

And they can't know we've tried anything unless we tell them we've tried something.



1. She doesn't need a vagina. She can have anal/ oral or hand job sex.


She needs a vagina because it's a basic part of the female anatomy. I've already explained that part to you, and that it's a thing people believe.



1. They're going by her words of needing a vagina for sex. That's what she said she needed a vagina for. That's what the article says.

2. They wouldn't do that for a man.


Show me that they're going by her words. Remember my allegory about the man and the fish? How is it that I can go by my own reasons, but these donators supposedly must go by her words?


1. Irrelevant.

This is relevant, and I'm... really struggling to show you how it is. You keep saying "Nah they went by her words!" But when I give you an example of not going by someone's words, how that's entirely possible and likely, you say "What does that have to do with anything?" I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.


1. Small is non functioning. Anything under 5.5 inches erect is non functioning and needs penis enlargement.

Thanks for the intellectual discussion but I honestly believe you're a Foid or Leftist feminist infiltrator.


Are you stupid son? @FrothySolutions

That's their modus operandi. Surely you must know that.


Oh come on. 5.5 is plenty of length to penetrate and inseminate. She might not enjoy it, but that's not the same as a "non-functioning."

Those threads you posted have nothing to do with medical function of a penis. They're about whether or not a penis is worthy in the desires of a woman. Whether a woman will want to have sex with a small penis. That is an issue of vanity. Not the same as being deprived of something basic. Having a 5 inch penis is worlds beyond having no penis. Literally being without the physical capability of deposting semen.

A man might not want to have sex with a vaginaless woman. But that's not why she needs a vagina. It's why she asked for one, but fuck why she wants one. She NEEDS one because she isn't really a woman without one.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
No one's saying you don't have the right to be mad about working hard but failing. Not yet, anyway. What's being said here is that "No guarantees" is not backtracking nor is it cowardice. It's a basic fact of life.

It seems like you wanna frame this like you were promised something by somebody if you do something, you were told that people who do that thing are "entitled" to something, and were subsequently "cheated" when it didn't work out. But you weren't. You never got any guarantees, and that's something you gotta accept.

1. Motte and Bailey argumentation technique. Already provided. You didn't respond to that.
2. Them keeping on saying you have to earn something with doing x,y and z with utmost certainty is indicative of saying its something to be earned. If you earn something then youre entitled to it.
3. Want to play analogies. Okay I'm game. If you earn your day wages then are you entitled to it or is it just no guarantees?
4. How do you know we haven't done x,y and z. Failed in accomplishing our end goals?
5. Regarding guarantees would you tell that to the man who got cheated out of his day wages after earning it?
6. Actually we did get cheated and conned. Its something called being "led up the garden path"



People throw Maslow around all the time. Fact is you will die without food. The elements will kill you without shelter. But I've been sexless all my life and I'm not dead yet. Maslow is something for the desperate to make excuses out of.

And they aren't preaching with any certainty. Again, no one made you any guarantees.

1. You're a mute point. You don't represent anyone except yourself. So you can't use yourself as a counter.
2. Lack of sex does kill. Just over a longer period of time and not recorded.
3. Maslow hierarchical needs is universally accepted as the go to for discerning a humans actual needs.
4. No guarantees. Again motte and Bailey defence when it suits them.
5. Many people live without shelter. Doesn't kill them. Food yes. So how is acknowledging that desperate?


What mantra? "Improve yourself?" So just don't ever try something unless it's a guaranteed certainty that it'll work? You're not saying that, are you?

And they can't know we've tried anything unless we tell them we've tried something.

1. To answer your point in the first paragraph in this instance yes.
2. They conveniently call us liars when we've said we've tried their bs and it doesn't work.


She needs a vagina because it's a basic part of the female anatomy. I've already explained that part to you, and that it's a thing people believe.

1. She said she needed a vagina for sex.
2. Others donated on her words of saying she needs a vagina for sex.
3. She can do all that other stuff without a vagina.
4. They keep on repeating that Trans woman and pre operation Trans women are women. So your point is mute here.



Show me that they're going by her words. Remember my allegory about the man and the fish? How is it that I can go by my own reasons, but these donators supposedly must go by her words?

1. Red herring what you've thrown in.
2. See above.

This is relevant, and I'm... really struggling to show you how it is. You keep saying "Nah they went by her words!" But when I give you an example of not going by someone's words, how that's entirely possible and likely, you say "What does that have to do with anything?" I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

1. See above.
2. Show me where they've donated to a guy who's has his dick cut off because it's not normal?
3. Trans men are men am I right? Said with sarcasm.


Oh come on. 5.5 is plenty of length to penetrate and inseminate. She might not enjoy it, but that's not the same as a "non-functioning."

Those threads you posted have nothing to do with medical function of a penis. They're about whether or not a penis is worthy in the desires of a woman. Whether a woman will want to have sex with a small penis. That is an issue of vanity. Not the same as being deprived of something basic. Having a 5 inch penis is worlds beyond having no penis. Literally being without the physical capability of deposting semen.

A man might not want to have sex with a vaginaless woman. But that's not why she needs a vagina. It's why she asked for one, but fuck why she wants one. She NEEDS one because she isn't really a woman without one.

1. You're being transphobic according to Xpel if you say you're not really a woman without a functioning vagina. Your point there is mute.
2. Being denied sex because your penis is not up to scratch is the same as having no penis. End result.

Will you reply to points head on or just keep skirting around?
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. Motte and Bailey argumentation technique. Already provided. You didn't respond to that.

Motte & bailey? What argument have I switched on you? And what have you allegedly provided that I didn't respond to?

If it's the "no guarantees" thing, that has always been the case. It was the case when you failed, and it was the case before you failed and the advice was first given. No guarantees just for "working hard."

2. Them keeping on saying you have to earn something with doing x,y and z with utmost certainty is indicative of saying its something to be earned. If you earn something then youre entitled to it.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, no it doesn't? If I train to win a marathon, and I win that marathon, it doesn't mean that win is "owed" to me. I just happened to be the one who won. The people who lost weren't less "deserving." You have this upside down broken concept of "entitlement."

3. Want to play analogies. Okay I'm game. If you earn your day wages then are you entitled to it or is it just no guarantees?

5. Regarding guarantees would you tell that to the man who got cheated out of his day wages after earning it?

You know that analogy doesn't work. The answer can't be "no" because unlike other analogies, you're under legal contract if you're hired to a job. I've used analogies like, say, fishing, or being a homeless person receiving a handout. There are no guarantees in those things.

4. How do you know we haven't done x,y and z. Failed in accomplishing our end goals?

Like I said in Post 57, people can't possibly know that until you tell them. Have you not talked to other human beings? This is how advice works. People see you're struggling with something, and they say "Have you tried X?" Because they don't know whether or not you've tried X, and they know that trying X tends to address the problem you have. That's why you have to say "Nah, I already tried X" before you can complain about being browbeaten.

6. Actually we did get cheated and conned. Its something called being "led up the garden path"

You haven't though. For the myriad of reasons I've already given, but for the sake of getting through to you I'll go over them again.

  1. Advice is not a promise.
  2. The world is not a perfect meritocracy. Not everyone who works hard gets what they want.
  3. Unless you're legally bound to receive something. A paycheck isn't given to you just because you "deserve" it. "Deserving it" alone would mean nothing. You get a paycheck because your employer is legally bound to give you one. Pretty much everything else is life is not a guarantee.
  4. If someone gives you advice you've already followed, they're not "misleading" you. They just don't know you've already tried their advice. They're not psychic.

1. You're a mute point. You don't represent anyone except yourself. So you can't use yourself as a counter.

All humans will die without food and shelter. No human will die without sex.

2. Lack of sex does kill. Just over a longer period of time and not recorded.

How does it kill? We can point to how starvation and exposure kill. Sexlessness itself doesn't kill.

You could maybe argue that being sad because no sex indirectly results in self-neglect, which can kill, but that's not the same as sexlessness killing. That's self-neglect killing. And you can eventually stop neglecting yourself despite not having sex by addressing your mental health. You can't cope your way through a snowstorm or a famine.

3. Maslow hierarchical needs is universally accepted as the go to for discerning a humans actual needs.

By who? If sex were a need, there'd be authorities trying to make sure everyone got it. And yet, the last governments of the world have thrown out their hooker subsidy programs because as rough as having no gf is, it's not the same as starving or being homeless.

5. Many people live without shelter. Doesn't kill them. Food yes. So how is acknowledging that desperate?

Not entirely without shelter. They find temporary shelter. No one stays entirely homeless for very long. Just like you can't eat nothing for very long. You eventually find a little food. Or you die. Go without food long enough, and you die. Expose yourself to the elements long enough, and you die. But people have lived full human lifespans as virgins. The sexlessness itself didn't kill them.

1. To answer your point in the first paragraph in this instance yes.
2. They conveniently call us liars when we've said we've tried their bs and it doesn't work.

I'm sorry people are calling you a liar. But to say "Don't try unless it's a guaranteed certainty" is beyond naive. It's childish. It's not how the world works.

1. She said she needed a vagina for sex.
2. Others donated on her words of saying she needs a vagina for sex.
3. She can do all that other stuff without a vagina.
4. They keep on repeating that Trans woman and pre operation Trans women are women. So your point is mute here.

Which people? I keep asking you which donators you heard this from. How you know they donated on her words, and not their own reasons. I keep asking you why they can't donate on their own reasons.

1. Red herring what you've thrown in.
2. See above.

"Red herring?" How? I think this is pretty simple. You say the donators are doing this because they believe she's entitled to sex. That it's impossible for them to have their own reasons, that they MUST go on her words. And I'm like "But plenty of people donate for their own reasons, including me. You don't have to go by the beggar's words." And you say "Lalala red herring." How??? Which people disprove this???

1. See above.
2. Show me where they've donated to a guy who's has his dick cut off because it's not normal?
3. Trans men are men am I right? Said with sarcasm.

I already told you about a guy who got donations & support because he was missing a crucial part of his anatomy. If the need is crucial, people will give.

And we're not talking about whatever hypothetical straw SJWs you wanna invent. We're talking about if anyone who actually exists, specifically Xpel Incels/whoever you're talking to on Twitter, says that sex is an entitlement to women but not to men.

1. You're being transphobic according to Xpel if you say you're not really a woman without a functioning vagina. Your point there is mute.
2. Being denied sex because your penis is not up to scratch is the same as having no penis. End result.

I'm so sorry for hurting his feelings. But it's not about whether or not a woman likes you. It's about whether you're physically capable of it. Again, issues of vanity are not worth donations. Fixing genuine medical disorders are worth donations. And I'm not skirting anything.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Motte & bailey? What argument have I switched on you? And what have you allegedly provided that I didn't respond to?

If it's the "no guarantees" thing, that has always been the case. It was the case when you failed, and it was the case before you failed and the advice was first given. No guarantees just for "working hard."

1. Motte and Bailey. Do this. Get X. Oh I just forgot I never said its a guarantee. Thanks for falling into that trap. Google it.
2. You're using relativism to deflect.

How many times am I gonna have to tell you, no it doesn't? If I train to win a marathon, and I win that marathon, it doesn't mean that win is "owed" to me. I just happened to be the one who won. The people who lost weren't less "deserving." You have this upside down broken concept of "entitlement."

1. If you worked for something more than the other guy and still didn't win. Wouldn't you say that was unfair and you're legitimately entitled to that win?
2. Youre displaying utmost masochism here.

You know that analogy doesn't work. The answer can't be "no" because unlike other analogies, you're under legal contract if you're hired to a job. I've used analogies like, say, fishing, or being a homeless person receiving a handout. There are no guarantees in those things.

1. Relativism and taking things to extremes.
2. See points above and below.

Like I said in Post 57, people can't possibly know that until you tell them. Have you not talked to other human beings? This is how advice works. People see you're struggling with something, and they say "Have you tried X?" Because they don't know whether or not you've tried X, and they know that trying X tends to address the problem you have. That's why you have to say "Nah, I already tried X" before you can complain about being browbeaten.

1. We do that but still get called liars nonetheless.
2. Will they concede that their advice is useless?

You haven't though. For the myriad of reasons I've already given, but for the sake of getting through to you I'll go over them again.

  1. Advice is not a promise.
  2. The world is not a perfect meritocracy. Not everyone who works hard gets what they want.
  3. Unless you're legally bound to receive something. A paycheck isn't given to you just because you "deserve" it. "Deserving it" alone would mean nothing. You get a paycheck because your employer is legally bound to give you one. Pretty much everything else is life is not a guarantee.
  4. If someone gives you advice you've already followed, they're not "misleading" you. They just don't know you've already tried their advice. They're not psychic.

1. WILL. THEY. CONCEDE. IN. STOPPING. THEIR. USELESS. DICTATORIAL. ADVICE? That simple really.
2. If you're told to do something and that with their utmost dictations you'll get it. How is that not promising you're entitled to it?
3. So if you're told not to break the law then you're not guaranteed from being prosecuted? Am I reading this right?
4. Advice is not a promise but their dictates are edicts. Motte and Bailey style defence.



All humans will die without food and shelter. No human will die without sex.

How does it kill? We can point to how starvation and exposure kill. Sexlessness itself doesn't kill.

You could maybe argue that being sad because no sex indirectly results in self-neglect, which can kill, but that's not the same as sexlessness killing. That's self-neglect killing. And you can eventually stop neglecting yourself despite not having sex by addressing your mental health. You can't cope your way through a snowstorm or a famine.

1. You have no evidence to say lack of sex doesn't kill.
2. You're arguing from ignorance and an undocumented lack of evidence.
3. You're going to extremes by saying apples and oranges analogy. Using extreme elementals to disprove me being the most obvious examples.
4. 1 degree of causation of death is as good as 2 degrees.


By who? If sex were a need, there'd be authorities trying to make sure everyone got it. And yet, the last governments of the world have thrown out their hooker subsidy programs because as rough as having no gf is, it's not the same as starving or being homeless.

1. They stopped the hooker subsidy all because they couldn't afford it.
2. Radical Feminists put an end to it.
3. You're going to extremes again.
4. See points below.

Not entirely without shelter. They find temporary shelter. No one stays entirely homeless for very long. Just like you can't eat nothing for very long. You eventually find a little food. Or you die. Go without food long enough, and you die. Expose yourself to the elements long enough, and you die. But people have lived full human lifespans as virgins. The sexlessness itself didn't kill them.

1. You're arguing from ignorance and lack of evidence.
2. Whose to say it didn't kill them but it wasn't recorded conveniently?
3. One degree of causation of death is as good as 2 degrees.


I'm sorry people are calling you a liar. But to say "Don't try unless it's a guaranteed certainty" is beyond naive. It's childish. It's not how the world works.

1. Not really. Why should anyone try unless you're guaranteed something?
2. Would you go on a wild goose chase? Why should others?
3. How is it naive or childish?

Which people? I keep asking you which donators you heard this from. How you know they donated on her words, and not their own reasons. I keep asking you why they can't donate on their own reasons.

1. See points below.

"Red herring?" How? I think this is pretty simple. You say the donators are doing this because they believe she's entitled to sex. That it's impossible for them to have their own reasons, that they MUST go on her words. And I'm like "But plenty of people donate for their own reasons, including me. You don't have to go by the beggar's words." And you say "Lalala red herring." How??? Which people disprove this???

1. Why can't we believe the donors went on her word?
2. Who are you to say otherwise?
3. What evidence do you have to say the donors thought like you did?


I already told you about a guy who got donations & support because he was missing a crucial part of his anatomy. If the need is crucial, people will give.

And we're not talking about whatever hypothetical straw SJWs you wanna invent. We're talking about if anyone who actually exists, specifically Xpel Incels/whoever you're talking to on Twitter, says that sex is an entitlement to women but not to men.

1. You never provided a link.
2. The woman said she needed a vagina for sex
3. The woman believes she's entitled to sex
4. Why won't you go on The woman's belief?



I'm so sorry for hurting his feelings. But it's not about whether or not a woman likes you. It's about whether you're physically capable of it. Again, issues of vanity are not worth donations. Fixing genuine medical disorders are worth donations. And I'm not skirting anything.

1. If your cock is too small to be able to physically pleasure a woman and deposit sperm then it's inoperable.
2. You're going to extremes to discredit.
3. That's why your micropenis analogy is a red herring.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. Motte and Bailey. Do this. Get X. Oh I just forgot I never said its a guarantee. Thanks for falling into that trap. Google it.

It's looking like you're the only one who thinks anyone is "entitled" to sex. No one said it, you're just inferring it, mostly because it's your personal standard. "Why wouldn't good people be 'entitled' to things like sex?" This is your upside down understanding of "entitlement" at work.

In order to be "entitled" to something, that means someone "owes" you. Someone is "obligated" to something because of you. And the only way you can be "owed" something is by agreement.

3. So if you're told not to break the law then you're not guaranteed from being prosecuted? Am I reading this right?

An agreement like the law. Yes, you are reading it wrong. A hiring contract, or getting to live somewhere provided you follow the law, these are agreements. Obligations you've agreed to be bound to. You are entitled to pay because your boss is entitled to your servitude. You both agreed to offer that. You are entitled to follow the law if you want to live in society. If you don't agree to that, you have to leave society.

1. Relativism and taking things to extremes.

2. You're using relativism to deflect.

Relativism how? Where? In my analogies? No, they apply even here. But fine, I won't use an analogy this time.

If I stay off drugs, drink my milk, brush my teeth, do all my homework, spin all my plates, hold all my frames, shower down to my very bones, and take out a loan so I can rent the ballingest Hummer limo to pull up to the joint with, that still doesn't mean I'm "entitled" to going to the prom with the girl I wanna go with. Or with anyone. That would imply someone failed to hold up their end of the contract. And there is no "contract" here. No one agreed to take my virginity at prom if I improved myself. That is the only way I would ever be "entitled" to sex. If I entered into an agreement with someone.

You might wanna say "But how fucked up a world is it where good people don't get guaranteed rewards for their hard work?" Yeah, that's the world. And to that you might wanna say "But if we can acknowledge the tragedy of someone working hard and it not mattering, surely that must mean they were 'entitled' to a reward?"

1. If you worked for something more than the other guy and still didn't win. Wouldn't you say that was unfair and you're legitimately entitled to that win?

No, that's your poor grasp of what "entitlement" is. It's a shame when good and loving men go lonely. But there's a difference between something being a shame, or "unfair," vs. being an violation of some "entitlement." Good men are not "owed" rewards. That would mean there's someone specific to collect from. Someone to point to and say "Hey, you cheated this man who was good but got nothing!" And that only works if there was some agreement.

You might wanna say "But what about the people who told me to improve myself? They 'dictated!' My contract is with them! They owe me something for making me improve myself!"

1. WILL. THEY. CONCEDE. IN. STOPPING. THEIR. USELESS. DICTATORIAL. ADVICE? That simple really.

2. If you're told to do something and that with their utmost dictations you'll get it. How is that not promising you're entitled to it?

They didn't "dictate." They saw you doing nothing and said "Typically people like improved people. Try improving yourself." They saw you continue to do nothing, with no word from you about whether or not you had even tried, and they were like "How can you possibly expect your life to improve when you won't improve? It's not gonna happen by magic."

4. Advice is not a promise but their dictates are edicts. Motte and Bailey style defence.

Let me stop and ask you this then: How DO you give a suggestion to someone with their thumb up their ass, without "dictating?" How is it when they offer you advice, it's a "promise?" Not just a likelihood?

1. We do that but still get called liars nonetheless.

2. Will they concede that their advice is useless?

Once you've followed their advice and it doesn't pan out, and they call you a liar, feel free to feel cheated by them. But what this sounds like is, you don't want advice. You're offended that they would even offer it. Because you already know better. But if you want them to eat crow for making you take your thumb out of your ass, you must first prove them wrong with your own example.

1. You have no evidence to say lack of sex doesn't kill.

2. You're arguing from ignorance and an undocumented lack of evidence.

3. You're going to extremes by saying apples and oranges analogy. Using extreme elementals to disprove me being the most obvious examples.

What about the countless literal examples of people who have taken celibacy vows and have lived full human lifespans as virgins? Those aren't analogies.

4. 1 degree of causation of death is as good as 2 degrees.

No it isn't. Sexlessness doesn't kill any more than the existence of beer makes you drunk. Your inability to control your consumption makes you drunk. And your inability to cope with sexlessness makes you neglect your health. Your problem isn't lack of sex, it's that you can't handle a lack of sex when you could just become strong enough to handle it. Like many actual humans have done. It's sad that you aren't having sex, and it's no doubt a challenge to learn to live without it, but you don't actually need it to live like you need food or shelter.

1. They stopped the hooker subsidy all because they couldn't afford it.

2. Radical Feminists put an end to it.

3. You're going to extremes again.

Or is comparing sexlessness with foodlessness an "extreme example?" If so, that's what you're not getting. Foodlessness is extreme, and that's what makes it a need. If you're acknowledging that sexlessness isn't extreme but foodlessness is, you're close to understanding why we set aside money for food, but not for gub'mint prostitutes.

That's why they stopped the subsidy. That's how state money works. You only have so much of it, so you sort things by priority. If hookers are off the menu, it's because they weren't important compared to what they did decide to use state money on.

1. If your cock is too small to be able to physically pleasure a woman and deposit sperm then it's inoperable.

2. You're going to extremes to discredit.

3. That's why your micropenis analogy is a red herring.

Similar case here. You know that a micropenis is serious, whereas a cosmetically small penis isn't serious. In order for something to be so important as to be declared a human right that we must come together to fund for the world, it must be extreme and serious. Not being able to find a woman who likes your small penis is not worth donation. Having a woman, but still being physically unable to impregnate her, that's serious. Whether a small penis is nice is a matter of opinion. But if it factually cannot impregnate anyone, that's objective. There's no denying it. And that's the level things need to get to be important.

1. Not really. Why should anyone try unless you're guaranteed something?

2. Would you go on a wild goose chase? Why should others?

3. How is it naive or childish?

Do you not live in the real world? This is how things are. Very little in life is guaranteed. Not everyone wins. And not everyone who loses "deserves" to lose. Plenty of good ball teams work hard but still don't win. Because it's not about deserving. Because there were no guarantees.

1. Why can't we believe the donors went on her word?

2. Who are you to say otherwise?

3. What evidence do you have to say the donors thought like you did?

1. You never provided a link.

2. The woman said she needed a vagina for sex

3. The woman believes she's entitled to sex

4. Why won't you go on The woman's belief?

Donors with their own reasons? Fine then. Here's two people from the actual GoFundMe page.




For Jailyn Sherman the priority here isn't about sex. Jailyn Sherman was born a boy. And without a real vagina, Jailyn Sherman cannot have babies. Sex isn't the issue. Having babies is.

You might be about to say "Nonono you have to have sex to have a baby it's still about sex!" But Cengiz Erentöz makes a specific distinction.



"Having sex isn't life or something you can't live without." Cengiz Erentöz specifically calls out Kaylee's desire for physical intimacy and says it's unimportant. But then says that not being able to have your own children IS something worth crying about. See? People have their own reasons. You don't have to believe women are entitled to sex to find it in your heart to donate.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
It's looking like you're the only one who thinks anyone is "entitled" to sex. No one said it, you're just inferring it, mostly because it's your personal standard. "Why wouldn't good people be 'entitled' to things like sex?" This is your upside down understanding of "entitlement" at work.

In order to be "entitled" to something, that means someone "owes" you. Someone is "obligated" to something because of you. And the only way you can be "owed" something is by agreement.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor?wprov=sfla1
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement?wprov=sfla1
3. If you perform emotional labour to get something like at work and you didn't get that. Would you feel entitled to that end reward? Or is it only women who perform emotional labour? Women are saying we should perform emotional labour for them free of charge. If we don't get anything in return then that's slavery. Are you happy being a slave?
4. There's numerous threads here showing the hypocrisy of entitlement between the sexes which you seem to ignore because of a masochistic agenda.
5. Women seem to be duly compensated for their emotional labour. Men not so much. Hell women can financially profit of emotional labour. Where does that come in for the men?
6. Wouldn't you say women have currently an ingratitude complex based on entitlement due to a narcissistic complex?

An agreement like the law. Yes, you are reading it wrong. A hiring contract, or getting to live somewhere provided you follow the law, these are agreements. Obligations you've agreed to be bound to. You are entitled to pay because your boss is entitled to your servitude. You both agreed to offer that. You are entitled to follow the law if you want to live in society. If you don't agree to that, you have to leave society.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule?wprov=sfla1
2. See points above.
3. You're tying yourself up with your red herring analogies.
4. Whose to say those agreements don't exist between the interactions of men and women?

Relativism how? Where? In my analogies? No, they apply even here. But fine, I won't use an analogy this time.

If I stay off drugs, drink my milk, brush my teeth, do all my homework, spin all my plates, hold all my frames, shower down to my very bones, and take out a loan so I can rent the ballingest Hummer limo to pull up to the joint with, that still doesn't mean I'm "entitled" to going to the prom with the girl I wanna go with. Or with anyone. That would imply someone failed to hold up their end of the contract. And there is no "contract" here. No one agreed to take my virginity at prom if I improved myself. That is the only way I would ever be "entitled" to sex. If I entered into an agreement with someone.

You might wanna say "But how fucked up a world is it where good people don't get guaranteed rewards for their hard work?" Yeah, that's the world. And to that you might wanna say "But if we can acknowledge the tragedy of someone working hard and it not mattering, surely that must mean they were 'entitled' to a reward?"

1. See above. You're not adding anything new. You're repeating yourself and have failed to defend your current position.
2. If you mention you have to do x,y or z to get something then you go into the realm of earning something. If you attempt to earn something and you don't get it then that's slavery and if you're forced to keep on doing it without a reward then that's coercion and blackmail.


No, that's your poor grasp of what "entitlement" is. It's a shame when good and loving men go lonely. But there's a difference between something being a shame, or "unfair," vs. being an violation of some "entitlement." Good men are not "owed" rewards. That would mean there's someone specific to collect from. Someone to point to and say "Hey, you cheated this man who was good but got nothing!" And that only works if there was some agreement.

You might wanna say "But what about the people who told me to improve myself? They 'dictated!' My contract is with them! They owe me something for making me improve myself!"

1. Its a shame when good etc men go lonely. Were just not supposed to bitch about it hey? That's masochism on your part.
2. Already mentioned and answered previously.
3.
.
4. Oral contract. Do x,y or z to get something. Motte and Bailey defence. "Well I never promised that". Not original or smart on yours or their behalf.


They didn't "dictate." They saw you doing nothing and said "Typically people like improved people. Try improving yourself." They saw you continue to do nothing, with no word from you about whether or not you had even tried, and they were like "How can you possibly expect your life to improve when you won't improve? It's not gonna happen by magic."


1. So you're defending them calling us liars?
2. How do you know we or I didn't do anything. You'd have to take me at my word just like they would. Hearsay.
3. You ever heard of a wild goose chase which it seems that you're defending on their part for us to do.
4. Keep on doing x,y or z with no guarantee of anything. What's the definition of madness again?


Let me stop and ask you this then: How DO you give a suggestion to someone with their thumb up their ass, without "dictating?" How is it when they offer you advice, it's a "promise?" Not just a likelihood?

Once you've followed their advice and it doesn't pan out, and they call you a liar, feel free to feel cheated by them. But what this sounds like is, you don't want advice. You're offended that they would even offer it. Because you already know better. But if you want them to eat crow for making you take your thumb out of your ass, you must first prove them wrong with your own example.

1. So you believe we or I have their thumb up their arse? Just like them?
2. Already answered as above.


What about the countless literal examples of people who have taken celibacy vows and have lived full human lifespans as virgins? Those aren't analogies.

1. They become nonces like in the Catholic Church.
2. How do you know they're keeping to their celibacy vows aka homosexuality.
3. Still doesn't detract youre arguing from ignorance. The probability that people have died from sexlessness in one way or another is the same as what you're arguing.
4. 2 degrees of causation of death is the same as 1 degree. Murder cases are built on such things.

No it isn't. Sexlessness doesn't kill any more than the existence of beer makes you drunk. Your inability to control your consumption makes you drunk. And your inability to cope with sexlessness makes you neglect your health. Your problem isn't lack of sex, it's that you can't handle a lack of sex when you could just become strong enough to handle it. Like many actual humans have done. It's sad that you aren't having sex, and it's no doubt a challenge to learn to live without it, but you don't actually need it to live like you need food or shelter.

1. See above.
2. Some strongman have survived without food and shelter. "Man shall not live by bread alone". So you're point is mute here
3. Beer does make a lot of people drunk. Too much of it can kill. Your point is mute.
4. You do need sex to survive. Maslow hierarchical needs. It wouldn't have been included if it wasn't a need. It maybe further up the scale but still a need or it maybe at the bottom which it currently is.
5. Are you suggesting we just shut up and suffer in silence and not vent?
6. What doesn't kill you at the top in the first instance will do so later on. Just goes unreported conveniently. For men that is.


Or is comparing sexlessness with foodlessness an "extreme example?" If so, that's what you're not getting. Foodlessness is extreme, and that's what makes it a need. If you're acknowledging that sexlessness isn't extreme but foodlessness is, you're close to understanding why we set aside money for food, but not for gub'mint prostitutes.

That's why they stopped the subsidy. That's how state money works. You only have so much of it, so you sort things by priority. If hookers are off the menu, it's because they weren't important compared to what they did decide to use state money on.

1. Both are important. In their own markets.
2. The government stopped hooker subsidies because they couldn't afford it. Not because it was unimportant. They stop certain health care as well when they can't afford it. Bad analogy.
3. Radical Feminists were up in arms about it. Gynocentric world order we're living in.


Similar case here. You know that a micropenis is serious, whereas a cosmetically small penis isn't serious. In order for something to be so important as to be declared a human right that we must come together to fund for the world, it must be extreme and serious. Not being able to find a woman who likes your small penis is not worth donation. Having a woman, but still being physically unable to impregnate her, that's serious. Whether a small penis is nice is a matter of opinion. But if it factually cannot impregnate anyone, that's objective. There's no denying it. And that's the level things need to get to be important.

1. You contradict yourself here. If a penis is small enough that you can't have sex but not micropenis then that's infertility and a disability. Society just brushes it off because WOMEN ARE THE GREATEST PURVEYORS AND DEFENDERS OF TOXIC MASCULINITY! Therefore men don't get the help they need.

Do you not live in the real world? This is how things are. Very little in life is guaranteed. Not everyone wins. And not everyone who loses "deserves" to lose. Plenty of good ball teams work hard but still don't win. Because it's not about deserving. Because there were no guarantees.

1. This just shows you have a perverse sense of masochism.
2. Motte and Bailey style defence.
3. Why didn't they add that disclaimer at the beginning.
4. Why are we being coerced via shaming into following their bs.


Donors with their own reasons? Fine then. Here's two people from the actual GoFundMe page.


View attachment 346364

For Jailyn Sherman the priority here isn't about sex. Jailyn Sherman was born a boy. And without a real vagina, Jailyn Sherman cannot have babies. Sex isn't the issue. Having babies is.

You might be about to say "Nonono you have to have sex to have a baby it's still about sex!" But Cengiz Erentöz makes a specific distinction.

View attachment 346365

"Having sex isn't life or something you can't live without." Cengiz Erentöz specifically calls out Kaylee's desire for physical intimacy and says it's unimportant. But then says that not being able to have your own children IS something worth crying about. See? People have their own reasons. You don't have to believe women are entitled to sex to find it in your heart to donate.

1. 2 examples out of how many.
2. 1 a transgender who hopes that this treatment will be used on her
3. So those 2 believed she's entitled to reproduction. As opposed to sex. "I can't breed".
4. Sex and reproduction are what we've been complaining about. She got access to that but men don't. So women it seems are entitled to that but men not. Is that your take on it?

1. Under your logic that person isn't entitled to a call back? But reddit seems to think so. Hmm.
 
Last edited:
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Saying you're not guaranteed something in a competitive or combative arena is disingenuous when dealing with interpersonal companionship based on a quid pro quo friendship.
Why are friends with benefits getting sex as opposed to merely guy friends? What's the non sex getting guy friend getting out of that friendship?
Also adding that if "rape survivors" don't have to go into detail about their experiences then why should we?
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_labor?wprov=sfla1

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement?wprov=sfla1

3. If you perform emotional labour to get something like at work and you didn't get that. Would you feel entitled to that end reward? Or is it only women who perform emotional labour? Women are saying we should perform emotional labour for them free of charge. If we don't get anything in return then that's slavery. Are you happy being a slave?

Did anyone promise me a reward at work? Did my boss say "Put on this smile and there's an extra reward in it for you?" I'm only entitled if a formal promise was made to me. Without someone to collect from, I have no entitlement.

And what women are saying we should perform emotional labor for them? This is like you saying someone said "Good looking criminals are entitled to sex." I need you to show me actual people, because I don't know that anyone is actually saying this.

4. There's numerous threads here showing the hypocrisy of entitlement between the sexes which you seem to ignore because of a masochistic agenda.

What threads? And it's key to remember what "entitlement" is. What threads are showing people saying that women are entitled to something just for being women, but men are not, just for being men?

5. Women seem to be duly compensated for their emotional labour. Men not so much. Hell women can financially profit of emotional labour. Where does that come in for the men?

6. Wouldn't you say women have currently an ingratitude complex based on entitlement due to a narcissistic complex?

Now this is not the same thing. Again, just because you get something doesn't mean you were entitled to it. Women get a lot of breaks in society. But that's not the same as an entitlement. They're not "owed" their breaks, society just decided to give them those breaks. Are you asking if women would say "I'm entitled to the benefits of society's 'It's all the Patriarchy's fault' biases?" I don't know that they would, we're not talking about hypothetical people. But any woman who would has problems.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unspoken_rule?wprov=sfla1

4. Whose to say those agreements don't exist between the interactions of men and women?

They don't exist because an assumption, no matter how "tacit," is still just an implication. Not definite. Who's to say those agreements don't exist? Who's to say they do? Without someone actually "saying it," there is no agreement.

2. If you mention you have to do x,y or z to get something then you go into the realm of earning something. If you attempt to earn something and you don't get it then that's slavery and if you're forced to keep on doing it without a reward then that's coercion and blackmail.

"Forced?" By who? This is advice. No one's "forcing" you to do anything. Again, they're suggesting it because they don't know that you've followed the advice already. And if they still suggest it after your revealing you've tried the advice already, this is because they personally believe it's worth another try. You don't need to take suggestions of advice as a personal attack on your character.

1. Its a shame when good etc men go lonely. Were just not supposed to bitch about it hey? That's masochism on your part.

5. Are you suggesting we just shut up and suffer in silence and not vent?

I'll direct you to where I said "No one's saying you don't have the right to be mad about working hard but failing." But understand, the tragedy here isn't that you were "robbed." Nothing was ever promised to you or guaranteed to you, not ever. The tragedy here is simply that you're suffering, and ideally it would be nice if you didn't have to suffer. It's sad when people suffer.


4. Oral contract. Do x,y or z to get something. Motte and Bailey defence. "Well I never promised that". Not original or smart on yours or their behalf.

"The main problem with oral contracts is proving its existence or the terms. As one wag observed: 'An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on.' " If a promise exists that was made to you, who made it? The people giving you advice? That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Pussy is not theirs to promise. It's advice, not a contract. Any action taken by you is presuming the existence of a contract. No action from the "holder" as you coin them is being taken here. If I say you might get laid if you improve yourself, we have no contract, oral or otherwise.

But you're taking it as a contract because you feel "forced" into doing something. And you feel "forced" because God help anyone that would insult your integrity by suggesting anything to you. That's not a normal way of thinking.

1. So you're defending them calling us liars?

2. How do you know we or I didn't do anything. You'd have to take me at my word just like they would. Hearsay.

3. You ever heard of a wild goose chase which it seems that you're defending on their part for us to do.

4. Keep on doing x,y or z with no guarantee of anything. What's the definition of madness again?

1. So you believe we or I have their thumb up their arse? Just like them?

Again I say, "Once you've followed their advice and it doesn't pan out, and they call you a liar, feel free to feel cheated by them." Have you tried to improve? I wanna assume you have. But even if you have, the people giving you advice don't know that you have. Because you haven't told them. And once you tell them you've already tried it, that you don't have your thumb up your ass, and they say "Nah I don't believe you," then they would be in the wrong. But until then, they're just giving advice, and you seem unduly offended by it.

1. They become nonces like in the Catholic Church.

2. How do you know they're keeping to their celibacy vows aka homosexuality.

3. Still doesn't detract youre arguing from ignorance. The probability that people have died from sexlessness in one way or another is the same as what you're arguing.

4. You do need sex to survive. Maslow hierarchical needs. It wouldn't have been included if it wasn't a need. It maybe further up the scale but still a need or it maybe at the bottom which it currently is.

6. What doesn't kill you at the top in the first instance will do so later on. Just goes unreported conveniently. For men that is.

So your answer to these virgins is "How do you know they're really virgins? Maybe they're lying." Fine. Maybe everyone's lying. No one has any proof of anything. So where does Maslow, or anyone, get his proof that you'll die as a direct result of no sex? What makes Maslow the authority? Seems like Maslow is the only one who's saying "If you don't have sex you'll die." Not much of an authority.

4. 2 degrees of causation of death is the same as 1 degree. Murder cases are built on such things.

3. Beer does make a lot of people drunk. Too much of it can kill. Your point is mute.

And no, murder cases are built on who's/what's culpable. Based on who had what responsibility. If a child dies in the care of its mother, the mother is culpable because she has a legal responsibility to take care of that child. If I die because no GF, who's responsible? Does the girl I like owe me sex? No, she has no responsibility to me. Should the person who gave me advice go to jail for "killing" me? No, because they have no responsibility to me. Same as how beer brewers don't have a responsibility to every alcoholic. There is an onus on the drinker to drink responsibly. And there is an onus on the incel to try his best not to crumble under the weight of his own misery.

2. Some strongman have survived without food and shelter. "Man shall not live by bread alone". So you're point is mute here

Again, not for long. You can't starve even the strongest man forever. We have medical proof that human beings need food to survive. Not some "psychologist's" subjective opinion on what makes people happy. That's another thing you're not grasping. Maslow was a psychologist. His knowledge was limited to afflictions of the mind. Not anything physiological. There's nothing "psychological" about starving to death. That's the physical failure of your body, as a direct result of not having food. You can't cope your way out of starvation, but the pseudoscience of psychology is all about finding copes. They're not even the same sport.

2. The government stopped hooker subsidies because they couldn't afford it. Not because it was unimportant. They stop certain health care as well when they can't afford it. Bad analogy.

Yeah, the "certain health care" they stopped was also unimportant. You see, they have the money for it, it's just something else has to go. They can only afford to pay for what's important. That's what "priorities" are. If it's not being paid for, it obviously isn't important, otherwise the other thing would've gotten skipped over instead.

1. You contradict yourself here. If a penis is small enough that you can't have sex but not micropenis then that's infertility and a disability. Society just brushes it off because WOMEN ARE THE GREATEST PURVEYORS AND DEFENDERS OF TOXIC MASCULINITY! Therefore men don't get the help they need.

That's not what infertility is. A small penis is a small penis. Infertility is whether or not your germ can swim. Or whether or not you can achieve an erection. Both legitimate medical disorders, both addressed by our medical system.

1. This just shows you have a perverse sense of masochism.

2. Motte and Bailey style defence.

3. Why didn't they add that disclaimer at the beginning.

4. Why are we being coerced via shaming into following their bs.

You want a "disclaimer?" Again, do you not live in the real world? You don't seriously want everyone with advice to preface with "HEY WHOA THIS MIGHT NOT WORK NO PROMISES" do you? Because you're not gonna get that. It's one of those things we're not entitled to. And Xpel Incels will tell you the same if this is the argument you're bringing to him.

1. 2 examples out of how many.

2. 1 a transgender who hopes that this treatment will be used on her

3. So those 2 believed she's entitled to reproduction. As opposed to sex. "I can't breed".

4. Sex and reproduction are what we've been complaining about. She got access to that but men don't. So women it seems are entitled to that but men not. Is that your take on it?

The question was "Do people have to go by the reason the woman gave?" 2 examples is plenty, because I only ever needed one to prove it was possible. You said they were all donating because they all believe she's "entitled" to sex because she's a woman. I said "No, there are other reasons to donate to a vaginaless woman, and I'm pretty sure people chose their own reasons."

And I don't know where it says Sherman wants that operation. Sherman wants to have a baby of their own. But Sherman can't have a baby because Sherman doesn't have eggs. The two examples don't complain about sex, or having a hole to fuck with, they complain about having babies with your own DNA. Is that what you want? Because if that's really what you want, surrogacy is an option. Plenty of men do it.


1. Under your logic that person isn't entitled to a call back? But reddit seems to think so. Hmm.

Where in that thread does anyone say the person is "entitled" to anything? What's "considerate" isn't the same as what's "owed." It'd be nice if a person's hard work was rewarded, but they were never promised that.

Now, there's the argument for reform, that people SHOULD be promised that. That the job searching process should be fixed. But that's a harder argument to apply to sex and romance. You can say businesses should be regulated so that they can only subject job hunters to so much torture. But you can't say humans should be regulated so that the "right" people end up together. Persons have more autonomy over their bodies than business entities.

Saying you're not guaranteed something in a competitive or combative arena is disingenuous when dealing with interpersonal companionship based on a quid pro quo friendship.

Why are friends with benefits getting sex as opposed to merely guy friends? What's the non sex getting guy friend getting out of that friendship?

If you're not getting what you need out of a friendship, you're not obligated to be part of the friendship. If you wanna have sex with your friend, make a friend who will willingly have sex with you. But friends don't "owe" each other anything. That's the beauty of friendship, they give and take because they choose to and want to.

Also adding that if "rape survivors" don't have to go into detail about their experiences then why should we?

Okay... even rape survivors must first say "Hey I'm a rape survivor and don't wanna talk about it." A rape survivor must first let the person know they don't wanna go into detail. Second, getting raped and trying to self-improve aren't the same thing. No one's asking you to relive any pain, just tell them what you've tried. Third, the sexless are looking for a way to not be sexless. That's why people give them advice. What would a rape survivor be looking for that anyone would ask "But can you tell me how the rape went?" And IF they were looking for that, whatever it is, I'm sure they'd understand the necessity of explaining whatever they needed to explain.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Did anyone promise me a reward at work? Did my boss say "Put on this smile and there's an extra reward in it for you?" I'm only entitled if a formal promise was made to me. Without someone to collect from, I have no entitlement.

And what women are saying we should perform emotional labor for them? This is like you saying someone said "Good looking criminals are entitled to sex." I need you to show me actual people, because I don't know that anyone is actually saying this.

What threads? And it's key to remember what "entitlement" is. What threads are showing people saying that women are entitled to something just for being women, but men are not, just for being men?

1. Numerous threads have been shown regarding women's sense of entitlement. You choose to deliberately ignore. Should I tag you in when a thread is made on Female "Entitlement"?
2. If you're told to earn something and you have legitimately done so. Wouldn't you feel entitled to the end product or does your masochistic tendencies over ride that?
3. You seriously want me to tag you in when women are shown to say that men should perform free emotional labour for them? Again you are ignoring what's on the forum
4. You don't believe that women can feel & behave entitled to something DESPITE always getting it because they're able to? That doesn't negate their sense of entitlement sorry to say.


Now this is not the same thing. Again, just because you get something doesn't mean you were entitled to it. Women get a lot of breaks in society. But that's not the same as an entitlement. They're not "owed" their breaks, society just decided to give them those breaks. Are you asking if women would say "I'm entitled to the benefits of society's 'It's all the Patriarchy's fault' biases?" I don't know that they would, we're not talking about hypothetical people. But any woman who would has problems.

1. The word entitlement is alternating between a "feeling" & an actual lived experience. They get a lot of breaks in society which you acknowledge but that doesn't necessarily negate their feeling of entitlement OR others believing that they're entitled to something all because they get it, does it?
2. If society decided to give them those breaks wouldn't you say that Society believes they're entitled to it? Why else would they do that?
3. You're ignoring what Feminists actually say & believe.

They don't exist because an assumption, no matter how "tacit," is still just an implication. Not definite. Who's to say those agreements don't exist? Who's to say they do? Without someone actually "saying it," there is no agreement.

1. I'm afraid they do exist. An implied contract with acted upon terms & conditions as of a "written" contract will have not so much credence as a written contract but still have sufficient credence to stand on it's own two legs in a court of law.
2. If they keep on demanding that you keep performing for them without getting anything in return than that's slavery mon ami.


"Forced?" By who? This is advice. No one's "forcing" you to do anything. Again, they're suggesting it because they don't know that you've followed the advice already. And if they still suggest it after your revealing you've tried the advice already, this is because they personally believe it's worth another try. You don't need to take suggestions of advice as a personal attack on your character.

1. They are forcing us to be at their beck and call. Otherwise they coerce you via emotional blackmail/mob rule/public shaming etc.
2. If their advice didn't work the first time round what makes you think it will the second? Definition of madness me thinks?

I'll direct you to where I said "No one's saying you don't have the right to be mad about working hard but failing." But understand, the tragedy here isn't that you were "robbed." Nothing was ever promised to you or guaranteed to you, not ever. The tragedy here is simply that you're suffering, and ideally it would be nice if you didn't have to suffer. It's sad when people suffer.

1. You were robbed and you have the right to feel that you were robbed.
2. If you were told that you were able to get something by doing x,y and z and then failed at it and then said that you failed at it and explained how that or generic advice doesn't work or didn't work and then told you have to keep trying and failing and if failing just shut up about it. Wouldn't you feel that you were robbed or at the least oppressed and bullied into silence whilst suffering already?

"The main problem with oral contracts is proving its existence or the terms. As one wag observed: 'An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on.' " If a promise exists that was made to you, who made it? The people giving you advice? That's a bullshit argument and you know it. Pussy is not theirs to promise. It's advice, not a contract. Any action taken by you is presuming the existence of a contract. No action from the "holder" as you coin them is being taken here. If I say you might get laid if you improve yourself, we have no contract, oral or otherwise.

1. Then they should refrain from giving their useless advice me thinks? If they don't want their ridiculous statements as being taken as "gospel truth" then add a disclaimer and let the hearer decide. What's so unreasonable about that?

But you're taking it as a contract because you feel "forced" into doing something. And you feel "forced" because God help anyone that would insult your integrity by suggesting anything to you. That's not a normal way of thinking.

1. Why is that not a normal way of thinking? Are you suggesting we all be masochists like you?

Again I say, "Once you've followed their advice and it doesn't pan out, and they call you a liar, feel free to feel cheated by them." Have you tried to improve? I wanna assume you have. But even if you have, the people giving you advice don't know that you have. Because you haven't told them. And once you tell them you've already tried it, that you don't have your thumb up your ass, and they say "Nah I don't believe you," then they would be in the wrong. But until then, they're just giving advice, and you seem unduly offended by it.

1. We're at the stage already where they are calling us liars. So yah fam. I can feel cheated and aggrieved so to speak.

So your answer to these virgins is "How do you know they're really virgins? Maybe they're lying." Fine. Maybe everyone's lying. No one has any proof of anything. So where does Maslow, or anyone, get his proof that you'll die as a direct result of no sex? What makes Maslow the authority? Seems like Maslow is the only one who's saying "If you don't have sex you'll die." Not much of an authority.

1. You're being facetious and arguing from ignorance.
2. Maslow was taken as gospel truth up to quite recently. What makes you think that you can pick and choose what he says?

And no, murder cases are built on who's/what's culpable. Based on who had what responsibility. If a child dies in the care of its mother, the mother is culpable because she has a legal responsibility to take care of that child. If I die because no GF, who's responsible? Does the girl I like owe me sex? No, she has no responsibility to me. Should the person who gave me advice go to jail for "killing" me? No, because they have no responsibility to me. Same as how beer brewers don't have a responsibility to every alcoholic. There is an onus on the drinker to drink responsibly. And there is an onus on the incel to try his best not to crumble under the weight of his own misery.

1. If a child dies in the care of its mother, the mother is culpable because she has a legal responsibility to take care of that child AKA NEGLECT. If I die because no GF, who's responsible? Does the girl (WOMEN) I like owe me sex? No, she has no responsibility to me. If I die because no one has fed me or sheltered me and I have sought out that & did everything in my power to get fed and sheltered but no one cared or listened etc. Whose responsible??? Fixed it for you.
2. 1 degree of murder is called indisputable homicide. 2 degrees of murder is called assisted homicide and complicity. I believe.

Again, not for long. You can't starve even the strongest man forever. We have medical proof that human beings need food to survive. Not some "psychologist's" subjective opinion on what makes people happy. That's another thing you're not grasping. Maslow was a psychologist. His knowledge was limited to afflictions of the mind. Not anything physiological. There's nothing "psychological" about starving to death. That's the physical failure of your body, as a direct result of not having food. You can't cope your way out of starvation, but the pseudoscience of psychology is all about finding copes. They're not even the same sport.

1. Already there has been articles. Scientific ones which show that lack of sex and affection can induce death by way of depression and the like. See above for the degree of causation & correlation Mr.
2. Because something is conveniently not recorded by Legal journals but Scientific ones do document it "on the cuff". Does that make it any less valid?

Yeah, the "certain health care" they stopped was also unimportant. You see, they have the money for it, it's just something else has to go. They can only afford to pay for what's important. That's what "priorities" are. If it's not being paid for, it obviously isn't important, otherwise the other thing would've gotten skipped over instead.

1. Not necessarily. Cancer treatments etc if judged to be not Cost Benefit effective are discontinued. Everything is about money & cost.

That's not what infertility is. A small penis is a small penis. Infertility is whether or not your germ can swim. Or whether or not you can achieve an erection. Both legitimate medical disorders, both addressed by our medical system.

1. If your penis can't do it's job then that's infertility. A small penis is in that category.

You want a "disclaimer?" Again, do you not live in the real world? You don't seriously want everyone with advice to preface with "HEY WHOA THIS MIGHT NOT WORK NO PROMISES" do you? Because you're not gonna get that. It's one of those things we're not entitled to. And Xpel Incels will tell you the same if this is the argument you're bringing to him.

1. So why should we listen to them or take their advice as gospel truth?
2. Why are they too cowardly not to come up with a disclaimer? Do they believe that their advice is infallible?

The question was "Do people have to go by the reason the woman gave?" 2 examples is plenty, because I only ever needed one to prove it was possible. You said they were all donating because they all believe she's "entitled" to sex because she's a woman. I said "No, there are other reasons to donate to a vaginaless woman, and I'm pretty sure people chose their own reasons."

And I don't know where it says Sherman wants that operation. Sherman wants to have a baby of their own. But Sherman can't have a baby because Sherman doesn't have eggs. The two examples don't complain about sex, or having a hole to fuck with, they complain about having babies with your own DNA. Is that what you want? Because if that's really what you want, surrogacy is an option. Plenty of men do it.

1. 1 contradiction = cherry picked. 2 SOLE contradictions = twice the cherries (Yum). Means fuck all at the end of the day.
2. Whose to say they didn't all go by her reason which is she needed a vagina for sex?
3. We're talking about genitalia and the orgasmic use of genitalia. Not infertility. Nice try at smudging though.

Where in that thread does anyone say the person is "entitled" to anything? What's "considerate" isn't the same as what's "owed." It'd be nice if a person's hard work was rewarded, but they were never promised that.

Now, there's the argument for reform, that people SHOULD be promised that. That the job searching process should be fixed. But that's a harder argument to apply to sex and romance. You can say businesses should be regulated so that they can only subject job hunters to so much torture. But you can't say humans should be regulated so that the "right" people end up together. Persons have more autonomy over their bodies than business entities.

1. Interesting that those people preach Communism in one breath & then preach bodily autonomy in the next.
2. Businesses are just a conglomerate of individuals. So therefore that analogy is apt to this circumstance.

If you're not getting what you need out of a friendship, you're not obligated to be part of the friendship. If you wanna have sex with your friend, make a friend who will willingly have sex with you. But friends don't "owe" each other anything. That's the beauty of friendship, they give and take because they choose to and want to.

1. So can't one feel aggrieved that one is friendzoned and the other fuckbuddied whilst providing more emotional & financial support etc than the other one? If sex workers charge for emotional labour. Whose to say guys can't as well?
2. Shaming via coercion. See above.

Okay... even rape survivors must first say "Hey I'm a rape survivor and don't wanna talk about it." A rape survivor must first let the person know they don't wanna go into detail. Second, getting raped and trying to self-improve aren't the same thing. No one's asking you to relive any pain, just tell them what you've tried. Third, the sexless are looking for a way to not be sexless. That's why people give them advice. What would a rape survivor be looking for that anyone would ask "But can you tell me how the rape went?" And IF they were looking for that, whatever it is, I'm sure they'd understand the necessity of explaining whatever they needed to explain.

1. Actually we're treated worse than rape survivors. We're automatically disbelieved in all the cases.
2. I think you went too much into detail skinning a red herring.
By the way that was one hell of a long break. What gives?
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
By the way that was one hell of a long break. What gives?

You have no idea how much it hurts me to refer to the meme, but there was a lot to unpack. So it took time and patience to respond to. And now I understand why the soys say it. Because there is so much wrong with your post. It is so bad. And your response seems to flat out miss/ignore things I've said. I don't think I can keep repeating myself.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
You have no idea how much it hurts me to refer to the meme, but there was a lot to unpack. So it took time and patience to respond to. And now I understand why the soys say it. Because there is so much wrong with your post. It is so bad. And your response seems to flat out miss/ignore things I've said. I don't think I can keep repeating myself.

You haven't addressed anything that I've said. Except with masochism and white Knighting.

My points posts still stand unrefuted.
In fact it seems like you're playing Devil's advocate for people who actually despise us.

Their points never made sense. Likewise your points make less sense.
 
dirtykombatcel

dirtykombatcel

They will know
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Posts
6,319
Online
26d 2h 47m
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
You haven't addressed anything that I've said. Except with masochism and white Knighting.

My points posts still stand unrefuted.
In fact it seems like you're playing Devil's advocate for people who actually despise us.

Their points never made sense. Likewise your points make less sense.

I haven't??? You asked me "What if you did thing and thought you were gonna get something because somebody gave you advice, but you didn't get anything? Wouldn't you feel entitled to a reward?" And I said "No, and if you take that argument to anyone outside of this forum you'll get the same answer. And they would not be hypocrites for saying it because they never said you were definitely going to get anything, you're just insulted that someone would dare give you advice." That's me addressing you.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
I haven't??? You asked me "What if you did thing and thought you were gonna get something because somebody gave you advice, but you didn't get anything? Wouldn't you feel entitled to a reward?" And I said "No, and if you take that argument to anyone outside of this forum you'll get the same answer. And they would not be hypocrites for saying it because they never said you were definitely going to get anything, you're just insulted that someone would dare give you advice." That's me addressing you.

The feeling of entitlement is still there. The fact they get it as opposed to us legitimises it for them but still doesn't detract from the fact they feel more entitled AND they expect to get it.
If their advice is poisonous then it's non advice and detrimental.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
The feeling of entitlement is still there. The fact they get it as opposed to us legitimises it for them but still doesn't detract from the fact they feel more entitled AND they expect to get it.

Then they are the people you need to take this up with. Your argument was "Why are good looking criminals entitled to sex?" You need to bring that up with people who've actually said that. Xpel Incels didn't. I didn't. I don't think anyone here has even said that except you.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Then they are the people you need to take this up with. Your argument was "Why are good looking criminals entitled to sex?" You need to bring that up with people who've actually said that. Xpel Incels didn't. I didn't. I don't think anyone here has even said that except you.

Silence is complicity.

The fact they don't say that BUT ACT LIKE THAT and still accomplish it whilst others turn a blind eye to that speaks volumes.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
Silence is complicity.

The fact they don't say that BUT ACT LIKE THAT and still accomplish it whilst others turn a blind eye to that speaks volumes.

No it isn't. You're only complicit if it's your obligation to speak. I don't have to say anything. Xpel Incels... probably doesn't have to say anything. I'm nobody's hero.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
No it isn't. You're only complicit if it's your obligation to speak. I don't have to say anything. Xpel Incels... probably doesn't have to say anything. I'm nobody's hero.

Yes it is. You can be complicit by doing nothing. He won't say anything because we've blown him out of the water sky high.

You're nobodies hero but you are playing devil's advocate though.

Goodnight.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
Yes it is. You can be complicit by doing nothing. He won't say anything because we've blown him out of the water sky high.

You're nobodies hero but you are playing devil's advocate though.

Goodnight.

See this? You're the one not addressing me. You just ignored the crux of my point: You're only complicit if it's your job to step in. I'm only complicit if I do nothing when I'm supposed to do something. Am I complicit if someone several states away gets shot? I'm not. And why am I not? Because that's not my business.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
See this? You're the one not addressing me. You just ignored the crux of my point: You're only complicit if it's your job to step in. I'm only complicit if I do nothing when I'm supposed to do something. Am I complicit if someone several states away gets shot? I'm not. And why am I not? Because that's not my business.

"All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing"...

Or even worse in some cases.

My points still stand.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
"All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing"...

Or even worse in some cases.

My points still stand.

Flowery maxims don't mean anything. I could be a good man and fight to stop pollution. But I'm not obligated to. I am not "complicit" in their being pollution because who says it's my responsibility to stop pollution? Whoever came up with this saying? Fuck whoever came up with this saying, they're not entitled to my cleaning up the streets.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Flowery maxims don't mean anything. I could be a good man and fight to stop pollution. But I'm not obligated to. I am not "complicit" in their being pollution because who says it's my responsibility to stop pollution? Whoever came up with this saying? Fuck whoever came up with this saying, they're not entitled to my cleaning up the streets.

Oh but you are. Obligated to.

Life is built on quid pro quo.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
Oh but you are. Obligated to.

Life is built on quid pro quo.

This is what I'm talking about You clearly don't understand how the world works if you unironically believe people have actual obligations to live an die by your personal ethical standard.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
This is what I'm talking about You clearly don't understand how the world works if you unironically believe people have actual obligations to live an die by your personal ethical standard.

I'm not the one ordering us all to be good docile quiet asexual slaves.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
Who's making this order?

All the people shown to be saying shut up, put up, don't expect anything from us but we demand you to conform to our behaviour for you.

Its all on the threads. Just have a read about.
That's just one example. We're not entitled to sex after being told to earn it but they're entitled to our conformity amongst other things which is unearned on their behalf.

Nah fam. Fuck that shit.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
All the people shown to be saying shut up, put up, don't expect anything from us but we demand you to conform to our behaviour for you.

Its all on the threads. Just have a read about.
That's just one example. We're not entitled to sex after being told to earn it but they're entitled to our conformity amongst other things which is unearned on their behalf.

Nah fam. Fuck that shit.

And this is where the "unpacking" happens again.

First, neither side is "entitled" to anything. You can do whatever you want. You misunderstand what "entitlement" means.

Second, as an extension of that last point, these are not "orders." They're advice. You're not obligated to follow it.

Third, no one said you had to be happy to be a virgin.

Fourth, and what should probably be most obvious, no one's telling you to be a " good docile quiet asexual slave." In fact they're telling you the opposite. They're trying to help you have sex. Whether that advice is any good is another discussion, but where are you getting this idea that they're telling you to remain asexual?

Fifth, if you're gonna make claims about what people are saying, you need to provide examples. Not just say "Oh, y'know, people have said this." So far I have yet to see one example of someone saying "Good looking criminals are 'entitled' to sex."

And before you say it, sixth, getting to have it doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Until you can point to someone actually saying they're entitled to it, you don't have an example of entitlement.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
And this is where the "unpacking" happens again.

First, neither side is "entitled" to anything. You can do whatever you want. You misunderstand what "entitlement" means.

Second, as an extension of that last point, these are not "orders." They're advice. You're not obligated to follow it.

Third, no one said you had to be happy to be a virgin.

Fourth, and what should probably be most obvious, no one's telling you to be a " good docile quiet asexual slave." In fact they're telling you the opposite. They're trying to help you have sex. Whether that advice is any good is another discussion, but where are you getting this idea that they're telling you to remain asexual?

Fifth, if you're gonna make claims about what people are saying, you need to provide examples. Not just say "Oh, y'know, people have said this." So far I have yet to see one example of someone saying "Good looking criminals are 'entitled' to sex."

And before you say it, sixth, getting to have it doesn't mean you're entitled to it. Until you can point to someone actually saying they're entitled to it, you don't have an example of entitlement.

I've already answered this previously. You're repeating to no avail.

1. Oh but they do act like they're entitled to it and have said so repeatedly. It's not my job to satiate your laziness by combing through the forum for these threads when you can do that yourself.

2. They are orders dressed up as advice.

3. They have done that. See threads posted.

4. They are with cliff hanger silences after they've said their orders. They also use "Weasel Words".

5. See point one.

6. They feel entitled to it HOWEVER because they get it, it legitimises their entitlement. See point 1.
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
I've already answered this previously. You're repeating to no avail.

1. Oh but they do act like they're entitled to it and have said so repeatedly. It's not my job to satiate your laziness by combing through the forum for these threads when you can do that yourself.

2. They are orders dressed up as advice.

3. They have done that. See threads posted.

4. They are with cliff hanger silences after they've said their orders. They also use "Weasel Words".

5. See point one.

6. They feel entitled to it HOWEVER because they get it, it legitimises their entitlement. See point 1.

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
 
your personality

your personality

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
23,719
Online
95d 6m
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Already been provided mate.
Does one have to come out and explicitly verbally say this, that or the other OR behave in a certain way, drop weasel words etc to state as such as well as be legitimised in that all because they get it at the end of the day?
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
Already been provided mate.

No it hasn't. You said "People say good looking criminals are entitled to sex." I said "What people?" And you said "Oh, just look around, there's examples."

Does one have to come out and explicitly verbally say this, that or the other OR behave in a certain way, drop weasel words etc to state as such as well as be legitimised in that all because they get it at the end of the day?

Yes, someone needs to actually say what you're accusing them of saying, otherwise it's paranoid, overly sensitive ramblings.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
No it hasn't. You said "People say good looking criminals are entitled to sex." I said "What people?" And you said "Oh, just look around, there's examples."



Yes, someone needs to actually say what you're accusing them of saying, otherwise it's paranoid, overly sensitive ramblings.

1. Are you putting words in my mouth in the first paragraph? Weasel words and side stepping/ back tracking. They do say they're entitled to sex WITH THEIR ACTIONS.

2. Not necessarily. See previous point. Ad hominems amount to "Poo Pah" argumentation fallacies.
View: https://twitter.com/EXPELincels/status/1307538973766582272?s=20


1. Good looking criminals "kill" before getting sex. Same with Good looking rapists.
2. They believe they're entitled to sex.
3. They still get sex.

What gives.

See points 2 and 3. Doesn't contradict what I've said all throughout this thread.
 
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
1. Are you putting words in my mouth in the first paragraph? Weasel words and side stepping/ back tracking. They do say they're entitled to sex WITH THEIR ACTIONS.

2. Not necessarily. See previous point. Ad hominems amount to "Poo Pah" argumentation fallacies.


See points 2 and 3. Doesn't contradict what I've said all throughout this thread.

I already told you, just because someone believes they're entitled to sex doesn't mean they are entitled to sex. Getting something doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

Here's what's gonna happen if you bring this "How come such and such is entitled" argument to anyone. They're gonna say "They aren't entitled." And you're gonna say "But such and such gets to have sex!" And they're gonna say "Because they're spoiled. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it, it's just sometimes good things happen to bad people." Which I'm pretty sure I've explained to you, but you just refuse to grasp it.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
I already told you, just because someone believes they're entitled to sex doesn't mean they are entitled to sex. Getting something doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

Here's what's gonna happen if you bring this "How come such and such is entitled" argument to anyone. They're gonna say "They aren't entitled." And you're gonna say "But such and such gets to have sex!" And they're gonna say "Because they're spoiled. That doesn't mean they're entitled to it, it's just sometimes good things happen to bad people." Which I'm pretty sure I've explained to you, but you just refuse to grasp it.

You're skirting round the issue.

1. They believe they're entitled to something.
2. They get that something.
3. They then get validated by "oh well if you got it then youre entitled to it". Confirmation bias.
4. The only difference is that they're successful because of their looks and we're not.
5. Halo effect.
6. Ever thought that those people saying this generic "nobodies entitled to..." are lying to you and placating you all because they do in practice believe that their lot are entitled to such and such?
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
6. Ever thought that those people saying this generic "nobodies entitled to..." are lying to you and placating you all because they do in practice believe that their lot are entitled to such and such?

No I don't. And surely this isn't the basis of this thread? Your paranoid delusions about the world believing that the spoiled are actually "entitled" to what they get, and you aren't for no other reason than you're a man?

The issue is what you claim in this thread. "Why are good looking criminals entitled to sex but we aren't?" That's a dogshit argument. You take that anywhere and you'll be told "I didn't say anyone was entitled to anything, and anyone who says they are entitled to something is wrong." And to respond with "No no no you're lying to me you really DO think people are entitled to things" is worse dogshit. You cannot throw around arguments like these.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
No I don't. And surely this isn't the basis of this thread? Your paranoid delusions about the world believing that the spoiled are actually "entitled" to what they get, and you aren't for no other reason than you're a man?

The issue is what you claim in this thread. "Why are good looking criminals entitled to sex but we aren't?" That's a dogshit argument. You take that anywhere and you'll be told "I didn't say anyone was entitled to anything, and anyone who says they are entitled to something is wrong." And to respond with "No no no you're lying to me you really DO think people are entitled to things" is worse dogshit. You cannot throw around arguments like these.

You're repeating yourself to no avail.

I've stated my points and the criteria they use and disavow their belief when it's convenient for them.

My points still stand.

They can be spoiled and still told they're entitled to something THROUGH ACTIONS!!!

Watch what they do. Not what they say.

If those criminals arent entitled to sex then they should be put in solitary confinement or curfew.
Meekspill = a criminal being fawned over because of his good looks and thus entitled to wealth and sex.

Watch what foids and their orbiters do. Not what they say.
 
Last edited:
FrothySolutions

FrothySolutions

Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
Joined
May 6, 2018
Posts
14,130
Online
103d 21h 50m
You're repeating yourself to no avail.

I've stated my points and the criteria they use and disavow their belief when it's convenient for them.

My points still stand.

They can be spoiled and still told they're entitled to something THROUGH ACTIONS!!!

Watch what they do. Not what they say.

If those criminals arent entitled to sex then they should be put in solitary confinement or curfew.
Meekspill = a criminal being fawned over because of his good looks and thus entitled to wealth and sex.

Watch what foids and their orbiters do. Not what they say.

You don't understand what "entitlement" is. Or refuse to accept what "entitlement" is through your paranoid insistence of "Nah nah but Xpel Incels says they're entitled through the words he ISN'T saying!" I can't keep trying to explain this to you.
 
LittleBoy

LittleBoy

Modcel of the Incelosphere & Inceldom
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Posts
13,959
Online
70d 13h 11m
You don't understand what "entitlement" is. Or refuse to accept what "entitlement" is through your paranoid insistence of "Nah nah but Xpel Incels says they're entitled through the words he ISN'T saying!" I can't keep trying to explain this to you.

You refuse to see that fawning and sycophancy is a form of validating the whole notion of "entitlement" & whose entitled to what.
Xpel & Co uses weasel words & get out clauses as well as motte and Bailey style argumentation to disavow any proclamation he & Co makes.
 
SneakPower611

SneakPower611

Looksmaxing/Moneymaxing;
★★★★★
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Posts
1,978
Online
36d 11h 44m
Because good looking criminals have a better personality, teehee
Foids love thugs and violent men while they hate nice guys.
. Foids would rather be with a low IQ criminal who has beaten up a 16 yr old than a male who supports them financially
 
N

NorthernWind

Greycel
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
77
Online
3d 13h 38m
Because good looking criminals have a better personality, teehee
Foids love thugs and violent men while they hate nice guys.
. Foids would rather be with a low IQ criminal who has beaten up a 16 yr old than a male who supports them financially
View attachment 414121
Found inkwell. It's no wonder you are alone. Work on your shitty personality, creep. You are so shallow. Listen to Jordan Peterson about the importance of personality, loser. It's PERSONALITY what's matters. Only PERSONALITY. PERSONALITY.