Theory This is why I think we need love.

Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
In this post, I'll explain what I mean by "love", "romance", "affection", "validation", I'll explain why I think we naturally crave those things, and I'll try to refute some of the counter-arguments I've seen here.

Love (sexual): A strong feeling of sexual attraction towards a particular female that makes us want to court her, fuck her, make sure other males don't fuck her, protect her, care for her, etc (pair bond). The feeling of love for a female can be reciprocated genuinely if you're attractive. If you're ugly then you can only hope for fake love at best (betabuxx).

Romance: The process of courtship and pair-bonding that occurs when a male is trying to reproduce with a female and guarantee the future of his offspring. It doesn't last long, and the way it is carried out differs from culture to culture.

Affection (with your sexual partner): Basically the same thing as love. It is expressed physically, verbally, and with actions. Kissing, caressing, cuddling, spooning, hugging, sweet taking (simping nowadays) are some examples of affection.

Validation (from a sexual partner): The feeling of reward you get when she reciprocates your love/sexual advances. If you make attempts to fuck her and she responds positively (she fucks you) then your feelings are being validated. If you try to pair bond with her and she responds positively (she becomes your GF) then your feelings are being validated. Attractive men get true validation from foids.

This is what I mean when I use these words. If you have different definitions in your mind then that's not what I'm talking about (don't argue semantics)

Now I'll explain why I believe we are naturally programmed to seek love, romance, affection, and validation.

Natural Selection.


I think it's pretty logical to come to the conclusion that love developed in human beings as an evolutionary tool that increases our chances of reproduction and the survival of our offspring (and even our own survival).

When men fall in love, they want to spend a lot of time with their partner, they do all they can to gain their partner's approval, they feel a strong desire to protect their partner (white knighting), they get jealous when their partner shows interest in other men, and so on and so forth. It's not hard to see that the purpose of all this is to reproduce and make sure your offspring has as many chances at surviving as possible. Men have always competed against each other for pussy and the ones who were able to experience all these feelings had a clear advantage and were more likely to reproduce. We inherited the desire for love because love was an effective way to breed. On top of that, you also can't deny the many health benefits of love which are scientifically proven:

Love has consequences for health and well-being. Engaging in joyful activities such as love may activate areas in the brain responsible for emotion, attention, motivation and memory (i.e., limbic structures), and it may further serve to control the autonomic nervous system, i.e., stress reduction. Th is specifi c CNS activity pattern appears to exert protective eff ects, even on the brain itself. Moreover, anxiolytic eff ects of pleasurable experiences may occur by promotion of an inhibitory tone in specifi c areas of the brain. Th us, love and pleasure clearly are capable of stimulating health, well-being and (re)productivity: Th is wonderful biological instrument makes procreation and maintenance of organisms and their species a deeply rewarding and pleasurable experience, thus ensuring survival, health, and perpetuation.


So love not only gives us a strong desire to pass on our genes and take care of our offspring but it also gives us a strong motivation to survive ourselves. It is directly related to our one and only purpose in life.

Now I'll try to refute some of the counter arguments I've seen here:

"The concept of love did not exist until relatively recently. The sole purpose of relationships and marriage is paternity confidence."

Marriage as a contract was invented relatively recently, that's true. But relationships were always a thing. I'm not saying it was common for people in the stone age to have monogamous relationships for life, I'm saying that pair bonding was a thing and it would probably last for a short time (from the first stages of courtship until after the foid gave birth and probably even longer than that). The reason why I think this is that the desire to be in a relationship is present in people from all parts of the world nowadays and I assume we inherited that from our prehistoric ancestors.

"Men nowadays want love because they've been brainwashed by our feminist societies"

Feminist brainwashing is definitely a thing. Society wants you to worship foids and give them your balls on a silver plate. They've distorted the concept of love and adjusted it to their own antimale agenda. However, that doesn't mean that our desire for love is unnatural. You can see men across all the different societies around the world seeking relationships and desiring love. There's a reason all of us share more or less the same nature in that regard and it's not because of brainwashing.

"Men in ancient times didn't need relationships cuz they would just raid other tribes and rape their women"

The fact that men would rape women from other tribes in the stone age doesn't disprove the existence of relationships during that time just as the fact that the Vikings raided and stole from their neighbors doesn't disprove that they engaged in agriculture and produced their own shit. When prehistoric men weren't raiding other tribes they were busy surviving and trying to reproduce with their own women, and no matter how far back you go in time, intrasexual competition was always a thing, and I'm pretty sure that during 300.000 years of human prehistory love was important when it came to competing against other males (just like I explained above).

"All you need from foids you can get it from hookers"

You can't get affectionate with a hooker. You pay a prostitute to bust a nut and that's it. There are some special prostitutes that will be affectionate with you and pretend to be your partner but unless you're rich you can forget about that shit.

"Nobody cared about foids opinions back in the day"

True, but that doesn't mean men saw their women as breeding machines and nothing more than that. If you think the average joe back in the day didn't give a single fuck about his woman and had no feelings for her whatsoever then you're clearly coping hard.

"You care about foids validation therefore you're a cuck"

Trust me, I don't value women's opinions at all. I couldn't care less what they think of me if they're not fucking me. But that's how I am now because of years of inceldom, my views, and my hatred. But I can tell you this, when I was in my redpilled phase and I used to approach foids I never enjoyed the feeling of getting rejected by them. Anyone here who has experienced rejection can tell you it fucking sucks. And anyone who has been led on by a foid can also tell you that it feels amazing when you think you have a chance with her. We are naturally wired to care about foids validation and you can't deny that.

"If love evolved just as a means to an end then what's important is the end. Just fuck a hooker theory"

Friendship and camaraderie also evolved as a means to an end (the end being survival). We want to be friends with people because back in the day, our ancestors' survival depended on those types of relationships. Nowadays, you don't necessarily need to have a social life to survive. A lot of us are able to survive without having friends yet we still want friendship, we feel loneliness, we want to have a sense of belonging, and we want to socialize (even tho we don't need it to survive). All those things are necessary to be happy just as experiencing love is also a fundamental need for a healthy mind. Those of us who don't experience all that shit like we're supposed to end up fucked up in the head. You can't compare fucking a used up junkie hooker to pair bonding with the mother of your child. Achieving reproduction by "other means" does not eliminate our desire for love cuz that shit is in our DNA.




Anyway, I just made this post in response to a particular user who thinks I'm trolling him. I'm not interested in arguing half the forum so don't give me shit if I don't reply to your counterarguments. And btw, I fucking hate women and I will never fall in love ever again.
 
Ecstasy

Ecstasy

To die now would be perfection
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Posts
7,116
Online
88d 8h 53m
Bookmark-tier thread. Everyone who thinks otherwise should just escortmaxx. And don't tell me its about the money you have to pay for whores.
Get a job
 
VindalooCell

VindalooCell

Streetshitter Supreme
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Posts
1,939
Online
31d 15h 6m
Anyway, I just made this post in response to a particular user who thinks I'm trolling him
I think I know who you are talking about. The thing with those types of people is that they still have accounts on these types of forums despite allegedly being above it all and calling others cucks for wanting affection. If they were truly satisfied with fucking hookers they wouldn't be on an incel forum.

Obviously not all escortcels are like this, just one or two.
 
Last edited:
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
I think I know who you are talking about. The thing with these sorts of people is that they still have accounts on these types of forums despite allegedly being above it all and calling others cucks for wanting affection. If they were truly satisfied with fucking hookers they wouldn't be on an oncel forum JFL.

Obviously not all escortcels are like this, just one or two.
He's not an escortcel and he's one of the few users here that I like. He thinks I'm trolling him because of the way I was discussing this topic with him (my sense of humor can be annoying sometimes :feelshaha:)
 
coldmachinery

coldmachinery

Mr. Self Destruct
★★★★
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Posts
1,847
Online
28d 20h 42m
Good write up and I agree. Love and transcendence is in the DNA. Romance was invented by men in patriarchal societies. Just because we aren't exposed to it in our small, cynical lifetimes doesn't mean it never existed in the first place.
 
kikecel

kikecel

the real life Trashcan Man
★★★★
Joined
Sep 10, 2018
Posts
4,826
Online
39d 10h 53m
Love is a basic human need
IT and normies will try to gaslight that Love isnt necessary to stay alive but its not true
 
L

Laplace

Greycel
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
16
Online
17h 12m
I'm not talking about maternal affection in the OP.

But affection is affection i guess. After developing as a human beeing and going through puberty you need other affection (affection from a girl/woman) lack of this affection won't kill you, but it's a human need just like eating/drinking. Without it you will likely die inside.
 
_realist_

_realist_

Devil in disguise
★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
292
Online
2d 6h 50m
Love is a basic human need
IT and normies will try to gaslight that Love isnt necessary to stay alive but its not true
Getting it is the problem as we know.
 
Loner94

Loner94

Officer
★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
817
Online
14d 9h 40m
Great thread
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
But affection is affection i guess. After developing as a human beeing and going through puberty you need other affection (affection from a girl/woman) lack of this affection won't kill you, but it's a human need just like eating/drinking. Without it you will likely die inside.
People who disagree with what I posted often use the argument that maternal love has nothing to do with sex. That's why I clarified what I meant by affection in the first place.
 
FullTimeLoser

FullTimeLoser

Full time... Winner? I'm undefeated
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Posts
23,806
Online
150d 9h 19m
@foidologist fears this thread
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
you are legit retarded
Just take it easy my friend. I don't want you to have a mental breakdown over this stuff ok. We're still homies right?
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Just take it easy my friend. I don't want you to have a mental breakdown over this stuff ok. We're still homies right?
Yes (but I define "yes" to mean "no". Don't change it to something that makes sense or you're arguing semantics.)
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
I've already defined the laughing pepe emoji to mean "I admit defeat". Don't try arguing semantics now.
Omg the levels of coping man hahahahaha :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelswhere::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Omg the levels of coping man hahahahaha :feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelswhere::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek::feelskek:
I'm just doing what you do. Let me move some more words around now and then write an essay post where only 2 sentences are related to the thing we're talking about.
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
I'm just doing what you do. Let me move some more words around now and then write an essay post where only 2 sentences are related to the thing we're talking about.
Dude, I showed you definitions from two dictionaries and I explained everything on dms and you're still coping. Just give up.
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Dude, I showed you definitions from two dictionaries and I explained everything on dms and you're still coping. Just give up.
you can't be this retarded. It's not possible. I refuse to believe it. You HAVE to be fucking trolling it's not possible
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
you can't be this retarded. It's not possible. I refuse to believe it. You HAVE to be fucking trolling it's not possible
Hahahahaha this is priceless omg

Define validation then
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Hahahahaha this is priceless omg

Define validation then
In this context I defined it as an affirmation of one's worth that one gets from being specifically "chosen" (through consent) by the foid. You gave "being liked by a dog" as an example of validation, and that makes no sense under this definition, since a dog will like anyone and it affirms nothing about them or their worth.

You included a tit for tat reciprocation as counting as validation, basically. And even gave an escort fucking you for pay as an example. Which makes ZERO sense since we are using sex by consent vs. sex by pay as our base example of sex with validation vs. without.
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
In this context I defined it as an affirmation of one's worth that one gets from being specifically "chosen" (through consent) by the foid. You gave "being liked by a dog" as an example of validation, and that makes no sense under this definition, since a dog will like anyone and it affirms nothing about them or their worth.

You included "a tit for tat reciprocation" as counting as validation, basically. And even gave an escort fucking you for pay as an example. Which makes ZERO sense since we are using sex by consent vs. sex by pay as our base example of sex with validation vs. without.
Wtf you're twisting my words haha read my definition man
Validation (from a sexual partner): The feeling of reward you get when she reciprocates your love/sexual advances. If you make attempts to fuck her and she responds positively (she fucks you) then your feelings are being validated. If you try to pair bond with her and she responds positively (she becomes your GF) then your feelings are being validated. Attractive men get true validation from foids.
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
Stop trolling. I'm talking about in our DM and you know that.
:feelsseriously:

I used the example of the dog because you were telling me that men in ancient times didn't care about foids opinions therefore they didn't need their validation. I said dog owners don't care about their pets opinions either yet they want their validation (you don't have to respect a creature to want its validation)

Later you tried to argue that dogs like you just cuz you give them food so they're basically the same as the prostitute. That's when I said that prostitutes, dogs, and GFs, they all act positively towards you cuz you give them something in return. If a woman chooses you it's because she wants you for being chad or for being a good provider (betabuxx). We're all selfish, that was my point.
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
:feelsseriously:

I used the example of the dog because you were telling me that men in ancient times didn't care about foids opinions therefore they didn't need their validation. I said dog owners don't care about their pets opinions either yet they want their validation (you don't have to respect a creature to want its validation)

Later you tried to argue that dogs like you just cuz you give them food so they're basically the same as the prostitute. That's when I said that prostitutes, dogs, and GFs, they all act positively towards you cuz you give them something in return. If a woman chooses you it's because she wants you for being chad or for being a good provider (betabuxx). We're all selfish, that was my point.
So you're admitting then that all of these provide your definition of "validation", and so the difference between an escort and a gf is not "validation", under your definition, but "being approved of by a woman" (a lot closer to my definition of "validation"), and so the thing you really care about is a woman's approval (her opinion), which is what you tried to argue against with the dog example.

You redefined validation so that it would no longer be about foids' opinions, but that redefinition broke the original distinction we had made between an escort and a gf, since that is the only real distinction to be made between them in terms of validation as you have just admitted here.

That's a lot of shifting meanings around to the point where I find it hard to believe it was unintentional.
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
So you're admitting then that all of these provide your definition of "validation", and so the difference between an escort and a gf is not "validation", under your definition, but "being approved of by a woman" (a lot closer to my definition of "validation"), and so the thing you really care about is a woman's approval (her opinion), which is what you tried to argue against with the dog example.

You redefined validation so that it would no longer be about foids' opinions, but that redefinition broke the original distinction we had made between an escort and a gf, since that is the only real distinction to be made between them in terms of validation as you have just admitted here.

That's a lot of shifting meanings around to the point where I find it hard to believe it was unintentional.
JFL at your mental gymnastics. You argued semantics when I was using the words validation, affection, love, and romance and now you're arguing the meaning of the word "opinions".

Read this
Trust me, I don't value women's opinions at all. I couldn't care less what they think of me if they're not fucking me. But that's how I am now because of years of inceldom, my views, and my hatred. But I can tell you this, when I was in my redpilled phase and I used to approach foids I never enjoyed the feeling of getting rejected by them. Anyone here who has experienced rejection can tell you it fucking sucks. And anyone who has been led on by a foid can also tell you that it feels amazing when you think you have a chance with her. We are naturally wired to care about foids validation and you can't deny that.

A man trying to pair bond with a woman does care about her opinions cuz her opinions will determine whether she chooses to become his partner or not. That doesn't necessarily mean the man values her opinions on other matters. Imagine a con artist trying to scam people as an analogy: He DOES care about his victim opinions cuz if those opinions are positive then he'll succeed in his scam but he still sees his victims as idiots.
 
Dead Fish

Dead Fish

I can't deny it. I'm here for fun.
-
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Posts
202
Online
6d 11h 59m
I wanted, I used to believe in love and affection. But it all died out inside of me. Now it just want to bust a nut in a hooker once in a while.
View: https://youtu.be/eQEIgzk0BZQ
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
Okay then you've changed your argument
Nope.

-She thinks you might be a good provider = Positive opinion

-She thinks you're stupid and a bitch = Negative opinion

You do care about these types of opinions if you're trying to court her. I'm not talking about her opinions on politics or the laws.

This is your logic: You care about one of her opinions then you care about all of her opinions.

keep trying :feelsjuice:
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
You do care about these types of opinions if you're trying to court her.
Okay, so you've changed your argument.
This is your logic: You care about one of her opinions then you care about all of her opinions.
More lies, I see. When did I say you said you cared about all her opinions? When did we even specify opinions on politics or laws?
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
More lies, I see. When did I say you said you cared about all her opinions? When did we even specify opinions on politics or laws?
You said that in ancient times men didn't care about foids opinions. You're trying to use the fact that back in the day people lived in patriarchy to pretend men never cared about foids wanting them.
Okay, so you've changed your argument.
Nope. I'm still talking about courtship.
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
You said that in ancient times men didn't care about foids opinions. You're trying to use the fact that back in the day people lived in patriarchy to pretend men never cared about foids wanting them.
You said men don't care about foid's opinions of them (and you attempted to redefine validation so that it is not based on caring about the foid's opinion), now you're saying they do.
Nope. I'm still talking about courtship.
So where'd the random bullshit about "opinions on politics and the laws" come from? No one ever mentioned that.

It seems that you're in the process of attempting to redefine the word "opinions" to specifically only mean opinions on certain things. I already saw you pull this trick several times and just called you out for it, so idk why you'd immediately try it again. I'm obviously going to notice it.
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
You said men don't care about foid's opinions of them (and you attempted to redefine validation so that it is not based on caring about the foid's opinion), now you're saying they do.
You continue to argue semantics just as I expected humpth
So where'd the random bullshit about "opinions on politics and the laws" come from? No one ever mentioned that.
You did mention that men used to have a lot of power over women and you used the fact as proof that they didn't care about validation (on our dms). Maybe if you addressed what I posted here instead of taking my dms out of context in a desperate attempt to discredit my points we could have a normal discussion
It seems that you're in the process of attempting to redefine the word "opinions" to specifically only mean opinions on certain things. I already saw you pull this trick several times and just called you out for it, so idk why you'd immediately try it again. I'm obviously going to notice it.
I'm talking specifically about sex and relationships. The first thing I did when I wrote the OP was clarifying what I'm talking about. You're still arguing semantics :feelsjuice:
 
Zettacel

Zettacel

KHHTV • Dreadfully Distinct
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
34,213
Online
139d 18h 15m
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
I'm talking specifically about sex and relationships.
I'm aware that we are talking about sex and relationships. That's why I thought it was jarring when you seemed to begin an attempt to redefine the word "opinions" to only refer to opinions about politics.
The first thing I did when I wrote the OP was clarifying what I'm talking about.
I'm also aware that you changed definitions and posted them here. I've mentioned that several times. I then pointed out that those new definitions don't fit with some of the arguments you made in the DM, which means you've changed your argument.
You're still arguing semantics :feelsjuice:
Yes I'm still paying attention to what key terms mean and not letting you change them on the fly in ways that are inconsistent with previous arguments. We shouldn't even bother having this argument in English or any language really. We should just smash our heads against the keyboard and let the random strings of letters mean whatever we want them to mean at the moment. After all, having agreed upon meanings of words is not important at all to having a discussion.
 
MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

Eternal fucking doomer $Please Swipe Here$
★★
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
603
Online
5d 5h 53m
Is love and romance even real? I use to think it was when I was younger and still wet behind the ears, but now? No way.

No, it's just a transactionary agreement, exchange, or commitment, much like buying a prized cow at an auction.

The cow of course is a metaphor for a woman in the sexual market arena, unless you're really into those big hefty gals with some weight added to them bones in which case metaphor is literal.

Women say they believe they're in love and some even seem to believe it but I think this just female cope so they can deny the real whores they actually are. A whore doesn't want to believe she's renting or selling herself out to a man, it just sounds so much better when you have that word love attached!
 
Last edited:
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Is love and romance even real? I use to think it was when I was younger and still wet behind the ears, but now? No way.

No, it's just a transactionary agreement, exchange, or commitment, much like buying a prized cow at an auction.

The cow of course is a metaphor for a woman in the sexual market, unless you're really into those big hefty gals with some weight added to them bones in which case metaphor is literal.
Based greycel
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
I'm aware that we are talking about sex and relationships. That's why I thought it was jarring when you seemed to begin an attempt to redefine the word "opinions" to only refer to opinions about politics.
Politics, laws, religion, economy, finance... I'm just giving examples of opinions that I am NOT talking about. But if you understand that I'm talking about sex and relationships then stop arguing semantics.
I'm also aware that you changed definitions and posted them here. I've mentioned that several times. I then pointed out that those new definitions don't fit with some of the arguments you made in the DM, which means you've changed your argument.
Blatant lies. I'm saying the same shit I said on dms. You should stop trying to twist words that no one can see and start refuting the OP of this thread (which you haven't done yet)
Yes I'm still paying attention to what key terms mean and not letting you change them on the fly in ways that are inconsistent with previous arguments. We shouldn't even bother having this argument in English or any language really. We should just smash our heads against the keyboard and let the random strings of letters mean whatever we want them to mean at the moment. After all, having agreed upon meanings of words is not important at all to having a discussion.
Now you're considering the option of trolling huh? Not gonna work buddy, I told you I'm willing to discuss this topic for an entire month I'm autistic as shit.
 
foidologist

foidologist

mentally crippled by dot-filled sewer years
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Posts
11,281
Online
77d 8h 34m
Politics, laws, religion, economy, finance... I'm just giving examples of opinions that I am NOT talking about.
No one said you were talking about them. We were talking about "opinions", and then, with zero prompting, you said that you're not talking about opinions on politics or laws. NO ONE mentioned opinions politics or laws. You were attempting to insinuate that that was what was meant when "opinions" was mentioned. A very sleazy way of attempting to indirectly redefine a word to suit your argument.
I'm saying the same shit I said on dms.
I know you're saying you're saying the same shit. I'm saying the definition for validation you have provided in this post does not work with some of the arguments you made in the DM, as I have went over. I am not just taking your words at face value, I am following them to their logical conclusions. The logic does not follow in many cases.
You should stop trying to twist words that no one can see and start refuting the OP of this thread (which you haven't done yet)
They're two different arguments. I have zero interest in engaging your new argument where you admit that validation is based on the foid's opinion. I don't care about this new goalpost. I cared about the original one. I didn't even want to respond to this thread at all. I only bothered because you were slandering me.
 
Idlevillagercel

Idlevillagercel

Detached
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Posts
6,356
Online
63d 23h 51m
No one said you were talking about them. We were talking about "opinions", and then, with zero prompting, you said that you're not talking about opinions on politics or laws. NO ONE mentioned opinions politics or laws. You were attempting to insinuate that that was what was meant when "opinions" was mentioned. A very sleazy way of attempting to indirectly redefine a word to suit your argument.
You tried to use the fact that foids opinions about stuff that has nothing to do with sex and relationships were not valued by men back in the old days as proof that those men didn't care about foids opinions at all.
I know you're saying you're saying the same shit. I'm saying the definition for validation you have provided in this post does not work with some of the arguments you made in the DM, as I have went over. I am not just taking your words at face value, I am following them to their logical conclusions. The logic does not follow in many cases.
The definition for validation is the exact same thing I was referring to on our DMs, everything I said in the OP follows the same logic as my DMs, and all of my points in the OP validate everything I said on my DMs. Stop coping.
They're two different arguments. I have zero interest in engaging your new argument where you admit that validation is based on the foid's opinion. I don't care about this new goalpost. I cared about the original one. I didn't even want to respond to this thread at all. I only bothered because you were slandering me.
It's the exact same argument and you know it. I explained in the OP why we do have the natural need for validation (which is what you were disagreeing with) and you don't wanna refute the OP cuz you know you can't. All these attempts to discredit me are just laughable my nigga.

Say goodbye to the holy see cuz I am the one you're gonna submit to, you intellectual dwarf.



Seethe