iirc, he posted something concerning his official diagnosis with it some time back.
Experiment Would you beat up foids in order to mate with them?
you've done this very behavior since we first interacted and I pointed it out back then as well, see here:
@Tarquinius cant even read
Since the thread is not open for further replies, but I want to reply, because this guy @Tarquinius is so painfully retarded that he cannot even read basic english words, I have to make this thread here. See: I say: "Women haters cannot be incel" This idiot transforms it to: "This guy thinks...
incels.is
Whenever you get fucked you instantly jump to petty insults, status mogging etc.
5 pennies your next insult is gonna be from this list of common anti-male insults:
You already did it btw by accusing me of being mentally unstable:
I am getting strong female vibes from you ngl.
There is nothing you can say that is not predictable. Just give up.
I don't see where I got fucked, or where I insulted, or where I "status" mogged (I don't have status, lmao) ... Could you please point it out?
Wtf are you even talking about.
this is trolling, I literally linked it.
You are a troll.
I will not reply anymore after this.
For anyone reading, I linked his reply to me over a year ago in the reply hes responding to.
There, he said this to me after I told him about my situation IRL:
He's clearly asserting hes superior to me because I have no job (status mog).
On his second point - "what are you even fucking talking about" - he accused me of being autistic, which is a charge of mental instability, just as explained in the "anti-male shaming tactics" infographic I linked.
He is deliberately ignoring all of this to troll people.
I'm out.
Immediately reminded me of this studyone assumption he also makes is that because a couple seems happy, the situation is preferable.
You can be at a disadvantage and not know it, and therefore assume you are in a good situation, while effectively you are being raped.
Based on his metric, abuse is good, as long as the victims enjoys it. So if I rape a woman and she has an orgasm, I guess its fine
Similarly, based on his metric we could apply the same logic to incels. If you didn't know about the blackpill, you would probably be happier and think you will get laid or married in the future. Hence, being blackpilled is bad, since it makes you unhappy. Ignorance is bliss guys ho ho
I see plenty of non-blackpilled guys outside that seem happy enough with their life, so why give a shit about the blackpill ho ho.
The concept that you could be getting a bad deal without knowing seems lost on him.
We can also observe people in north korea being happy. They think what the propaganda tells them is true. So I guess that's fine then, I mean, they are happy after all
:
Examining the Prospective Bidirectional Associations between Subjective and Objective Attractiveness and Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms and Life Satisfaction - Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Research has consistently shown that more physically attractive individuals are perceived by others to be happier and better psychologically adjusted than those perceived as less attractive. However, due to the lack of longitudinal research in adolescents, it is still unclear whether poor mental...
link.springer.com
"People's objective looks, rated by others, are usually the same as how people rate themselves, and if people rate their looks low, they usually have mental problems. But if people are convinced that they are good-looking, even if they are not, their mental health improves, therefore we must obviously start doing that
."
@WorthlessSlavicShit Holy fuck
imagine entering any deal, or buying any product with almost 50% failure rate
imagine every 2nd house burned down and people still kept buying them holy fuck
All Foids would run away from me
Why are you quoting and talking about a thread from a year ago which has no relevance to the current discussion at all?
Maybe take your meds so we can have a normal conversation.
Immediately reminded me of this study
Examining the Prospective Bidirectional Associations between Subjective and Objective Attractiveness and Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms and Life Satisfaction - Journal of Youth and Adolescence
Research has consistently shown that more physically attractive individuals are perceived by others to be happier and better psychologically adjusted than those perceived as less attractive. However, due to the lack of longitudinal research in adolescents, it is still unclear whether poor mental...
"People's objective looks, rated by others, are usually the same as how people rate themselves, and if people rate their looks low, they usually have mental problems. But if people are convinced that they are good-looking, even if they are not, their mental health improves, therefore we must obviously start doing that
this reminds me of @Atavistic Autist and his threads about CBT therapy - they literally want you to believe reality is just whatever you make it to be in your head
CBT is behaviorist gaslighting (it should stand for "Conditioning Behavior Therapy")
ABA is often impugned among autism advocates for being an invalidating and abusive treatment modality for autistic children. In this "therapy," autistic children are punished for acting autistic and rewarded for not acting autistic (like Pavlov's dog) until all that remains is an artificial...
incels.is
My therapist didn't diagnose me with OCD because the symptomology of it is incompatible with CBT "treatment"
For years I've had OCD in the sense of having strong feelings that something is awry -- the light switch is not off, the faucet is not off, the coffee maker is not off, the stove is not off, the door is not closed or locked, etc. These distortions cannot be modified by "correcting thought...
incels.is
The implications of this are staggering - it would literally justify some shit like from 1984, aka "we have always been at war with Oceania."
As long as you believe it, it's true.
This is rooted in their commitment to a quasi-eastern worldview (which they never openly acknowledge). In that view, everything is just illusion, "maya," and in your head. That's why they promote mindfulness and meditation on people. These processes are meant to dissolve the self in buddhism, since they dont think there is a self. There is only one, and anything else is an illusion.
This is obviously self contradictory since if there was only one thing, there would be no illusion, as the concept of illusion requires two contrasting things with separate ontological status buy hey ignore that and stop eating until you can feel your asshole through your belly button smoke weed every day yolo 360° noscope and also ignore how your government is raping you by conditioning yourself into becoming a vegetable
I'd also be willing to do it, to finally let out some of my frustrations on foids:
-Rejections
-Bullying(one of the worst humiliations I ever endured was being bullied by foids)
-The foid relatives I've had, who fucked-up my bloodlines gene-pool.
-Rejections
-Bullying(one of the worst humiliations I ever endured was being bullied by foids)
-The foid relatives I've had, who fucked-up my bloodlines gene-pool.
Based take GrAY
If that's what it takes to fuck them, I'll do it.
Again, I'm not an animal, I can follow natural laws or choose not to. You wanting to do something with females even though you know their nature and know you will not get one means you're not sufficiently blackpilled to be here.
So you're going to torture yourself and put yourself in a humiliating, compromising position by arguing that it's "what a healthy male is genetically programmed to do"? This is like saying you should go fuck children because that's what you're genetically programmed to do (pedophilia and other sexual orientations and paraphilias are genetic) and that somehow makes it healthy. There's nothing healthy about continually being obsessed with females and thinking about ridiculous hypotheticals such as OP's (no offense, OP, I just think there's no point discussing these because you're not going to experience it anyway; there's no point).
You don't. Saying you NEED a female is putting them on a pedestal. Sure, it's part of the first level in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but you can live and not want females or be in a relationship with one.
We are all broken. Cope if you think not wanting females will make you a broken man; it actually frees you from your desires and makes you want to serve them less when they don't matter to you. And how is "not having or wanting females" a merit when considering whether you're "a broken, mentally ill, defective male"? @GeckoBus mentioned this in his "Masculinity is a social construct" thread (I actually haven't responded fully to it, so I will do that after this because it's quite interesting and I have some comments about it). Is that how much females have power over you? You'll consider yourself all of these if you don't want to even ASSOCIATE with females? This is a normie talking point of pandering to females.
- Appeal to females
- Appeal to nature
Indeed, so you should learn from them to not fail, if that's what you think (despite it being the female's fault—females are the ones that most initiate divorce—you still go out of your way to blame the men for supposedly "failing"; that would make you, who never even had a female partner in the first place, a bigger failure than all those men combined).
@GeckoBus Look at this dude victim-blaming MGTOW for getting divorce-raped and having their children taken away from them. This dude takes the females' side over MGTOWs. The internalized misandry is unreal.
There's no such thing as a "good partner." All females are psychopaths.
Except not all men are abusive, but all females are rotten to their core.
Making wrong decisions means you can learn from them. These men admit that they have made the wrong decisions, and put themselves under scrutiny in a society where any criticism of females is deemed taboo, to teach YOU what not to do, and more importantly, the true nature of females.
>unironically supports censorship
You are no better than the normies trying to silence us for speaking out against females and for exposing female nature. I'm sorry, but I really can't sugarcoat it.
@GeckoBus
It's not "lecturing," it's giving life advice. It's your choice whether you want to listen to it or not.
I'm saying there's insufficient information to make any sort of reasonable inference from it to support your argument. I'm saying your "evidence" isn't valid unless we know more about the nature of these long-term relationships.
See, we need more evidence here. You just said they're in a long-term relationship and they're happy. Correlation does not equal causation. They can be happy for other reasons. And there WAY too many factors at play than simply saying they're are happy because of being in long-term relationships. As I said, it's not enough to make any conclusions based on it.
They are.
How do you have 18,000 posts and still be this bluepilled? Are those posts just you peddling this same thinking?
Females (barely human) are not the same as men. Don't compare them. They are not comparable. We are not the same.
Except my belief system is actually supported by scientific evidence (multiple books, studies, and pieces of scientific literature). You even say this yourself, it's "usually" not a good thing to do (true), but that doesn't mean that some generalizations aren't correct. You invalidating my argument by saying it's a generalization is ironically generalizing the nature of generalizations. Not all generalizations are invalid.
I'm not getting pussy anyway, it doesn't make me any less of an Incel. I'm not better than a dude without a dick because I can never use it.
Women like to get beat up
Weak? - no
High inhib? - yes
Don´t really want to end up in court
High inhib? - yes
Don´t really want to end up in court
I think that guy is literally just trolling. Look at the link I posted to the shit he said over a year ago to me and @Tarquinius . Even back then he was just larping. It's probably an account run by multiple foids or something, that would explain how he can post that much.
Again, I'm not an animal, I can follow natural laws or choose not to. You wanting to do something with females even though you know their nature and know you will not get one means you're not sufficiently blackpilled to be here.
So you're going to torture yourself and put yourself in a humiliating, compromising position by arguing that it's "what a healthy male is genetically programmed to do"? This is like saying you should go fuck children because that's what you're genetically programmed to do (pedophilia and other sexual orientations and paraphilias are genetic) and that somehow makes it healthy. There's nothing healthy about continually being obsessed with females and thinking about ridiculous hypotheticals such as OP's (no offense, OP, I just think there's no point discussing these because you're not going to experience it anyway; there's no point).
You don't. Saying you NEED a female is putting them on a pedestal. Sure, it's part of the first level in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but you can live and not want females or be in a relationship with one.
We are all broken. Cope if you think not wanting females will make you a broken man; it actually frees you from your desires and makes you want to serve them less when they don't matter to you. And how is "not having or wanting females" a merit when considering whether you're "a broken, mentally ill, defective male"? @GeckoBus mentioned this in his "Masculinity is a social construct" thread (I actually haven't responded fully to it, so I will do that after this because it's quite interesting and I have some comments about it). Is that how much females have power over you? You'll consider yourself all of these if you don't want to even ASSOCIATE with females? This is a normie talking point of pandering to females.
- Appeal to females
- Appeal to nature
Indeed, so you should learn from them to not fail, if that's what you think (despite it being the female's fault—females are the ones that most initiate divorce—you still go out of your way to blame the men for supposedly "failing"; that would make you, who never even had a female partner in the first place, a bigger failure than all those men combined).
@GeckoBus Look at this dude victim-blaming MGTOW for getting divorce-raped and having their children taken away from them. This dude takes the females' side over MGTOWs. The internalized misandry is unreal.
There's no such thing as a "good partner." All females are psychopaths.
Except not all men are abusive, but all females are rotten to their core.
Making wrong decisions means you can learn from them. These men admit that they have made the wrong decisions, and put themselves under scrutiny in a society where any criticism of females is deemed taboo, to teach YOU what not to do, and more importantly, the true nature of females.
>unironically supports censorship
You are no better than the normies trying to silence us for speaking out against females and for exposing female nature. I'm sorry, but I really can't sugarcoat it.
@GeckoBus
It's not "lecturing," it's giving life advice. It's your choice whether you want to listen to it or not.
I'm saying there's insufficient information to make any sort of reasonable inference from it to support your argument. I'm saying your "evidence" isn't valid unless we know more about the nature of these long-term relationships.
See, we need more evidence here. You just said they're in a long-term relationship and they're happy. Correlation does not equal causation. They can be happy for other reasons. And there WAY too many factors at play than simply saying they're are happy because of being in long-term relationships. As I said, it's not enough to make any conclusions based on it.
They are.
How do you have 18,000 posts and still be this bluepilled? Are those posts just you peddling this same thinking?
Females (barely human) are not the same as men. Don't compare them. They are not comparable. We are not the same.
Except my belief system is actually supported by scientific evidence (multiple books, studies, and pieces of scientific literature). You even say this yourself, it's "usually" not a good thing to do (true), but that doesn't mean that some generalizations aren't correct. You invalidating my argument by saying it's a generalization is ironically generalizing the nature of generalizations. Not all generalizations are invalid.
I'm not getting pussy anyway, it doesn't make me any less of an Incel. I'm not better than a dude without a dick because I can never use it.
He blatantly ignores points you and me are making. There is no way it is not on purpose, he is getting a rise out of driving us insane.
Blackpill basics: Looks determine how people treat you.
How people treat you determines how your personality develops.
People determine gender by how you look (male or female).
People consistently treat women differently from men.
Women's personality develops consistently different from men based on the unifying factor of looking female.
Conclusion: All women will share common personality traits based on looking like women and getting treated as such.
The same applies to men.
To say that all women are not predictable and share similar traits while they make 80%+ of customer purchases is insane. Marketing agencies clearly know that women are predictable and operate as a collective.
Also things like this:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/
Like I said, the evidence is on our side, he is just trolling. Ignore him.
Last edited:
most women need rape correction
High-IQ as fuck. GeckoBus does not disappoint.one assumption he also makes is that because a couple seems happy, the situation is preferable.
You can be at a disadvantage and not know it, and therefore assume you are in a good situation, while effectively you are being raped.
Based on his metric, abuse is good, as long as the victims enjoys it. So if I rape a woman and she has an orgasm, I guess its fine
Similarly, based on his metric we could apply the same logic to incels. If you didn't know about the blackpill, you would probably be happier and think you will get laid or married in the future. Hence, being blackpilled is bad, since it makes you unhappy. Ignorance is bliss guys ho ho
I see plenty of non-blackpilled guys outside that seem happy enough with their life, so why give a shit about the blackpill ho ho.
The concept that you could be getting a bad deal without knowing seems lost on him.
We can also observe people in north korea being happy. They think what the propaganda tells them is true. So I guess that's fine then, I mean, they are happy after all
Yeah, this is an example of the black-and-white fallacy. "They're in a long-term relationship [and assuming they're happy because of this and not just a "they're happy" and "they're in a long-term relationship," which is non-sequitur] and they're happy! So there must not be anything bad going on in their life!" This is ridiculous.
I started this, sorry for derailing the thread.
Dude has been here since I was in elementary school and STILL is bluepilled. Can't make this shit up.
@WorthlessSlavicShit Holy fuck
imagine entering any deal, or buying any product with almost 50% failure rate
imagine every 2nd house burned down and people still kept buying them holy fuck
That's not enough. You have to read studies.
you've done this very behavior since we first interacted and I pointed it out back then as well, see here:
@Tarquinius cant even read
Since the thread is not open for further replies, but I want to reply, because this guy @Tarquinius is so painfully retarded that he cannot even read basic english words, I have to make this thread here. See: I say: "Women haters cannot be incel" This idiot transforms it to: "This guy thinks...
Whenever you get fucked you instantly jump to petty insults, status mogging etc.
5 pennies your next insult is gonna be from this list of common anti-male insults:
You already did it btw by accusing me of being mentally unstable:
View attachment 1140429
I am getting strong female vibes from you ngl.
There is nothing you can say that is not predictable. Just give up.
Literally bottom-tier insults too.
>ad hominem
So you think men's only value comes from having a job? Meanwhile, females live on their asses everyday.
Going through the thread, you have a massive inferiority complex and are probably projecting.
You use the same shaming tactics as you do now, so it IS relevant.
He gives me boomer vibes more. He can't get off his high horse.I think that guy is literally just trolling. Look at the link I posted to the shit he said over a year ago to me and @@Tarquinius . Even back then he was just larping. It's probably an account run by multiple foids or something, that would explain how he can post that much.
He blatantly ignores points you and me are making. There is no way it is not on purpose, he is getting a rise out of driving us insane.
I literally reported him for saying "not all women are evil" (a rejection of the blackpill and exactly what you said: that females are a hivemind and are also psychopathic, meaning that ALL females are evil) and the mod said "This is something to be argued over, not something that contradicts the blackpill." They really don't want to ban him because he's an 18,000–post count, 2018 user and that somehow makes him better than the rest of us despite aggressively shilling the bluepill and putting females on a pedestal.
So far, he has been:
- Victim-blaming
- Female-worshiping/pandering
- Anti-ND/ND-shaming
- Anti-NEET
@Fed Link @PLA1092 @Uggo Mongo @proudWEED ha ha He needs a vacation so he can actually go and read the blackpill, and because of the mentioned above reasons.
You are an animal. You're a creature of earth and you abide to its laws of nature. What do you think you are? A God? A God who defies the laws of physics and biology?
Me wanting something to do with females is healthy male behavior. None of the nonesense you're saying. And me acknowledging that fact makes me blackpilled, because the blackpill has always been about facts, not ideology.
For me it's less torturing to just accept reality (= my healthy need and craving for a woman) than to constantly try to convince myself to believe into a delusion about how I'm fine without a woman.
I'm blackpilled, I accept facts, I don't delude myself.
Your example with fucking children is completely besides the point, because fucking children is not a healthy natural behavior. Obsessing about females is, and that is a fact. Every male living being on planet earth is trying to procreate and procreation is a part of maslows pyramid of needs, having a woman is literally a basic need. You cannot argue with that fact.
Wrong. Saying I need a female is not putting them on a pedestal, it's stating a biological fact.
Without a female your basic needs aren't fulfillled and you cannot survive, you will die without offspring, which means permanent death, which is the very thing every living being on earth is battling against.
You not wanting females literally makes you a broken man. You're a male that will not procreate, which means permanent death of your gene pool, yes, that is literally the definition of a broken male. A male that doesn't want to procreate is broken.
You say "serve them", which shows that you lack understanding. Having a woman isn't serving them, it's serving YOU because it allows you to fulfill your deepest, most natural desires which is caring for your family + having offspring.
As I said, you're not appealing to females or nature, you're appealing to yourself.
Learning from their mistakes means to not choose bad partners. It doesn't mean to not choose at all.
You claim every divorce is always the females fault - what an absurd statement. Only the braindead mgtow echo chamber can grow irrational thoughts like that.
And no, the person who made a wrong decision failed. The person who didn't get to choose didn't fail. So no, I'm not a bigger failure.
But it amuses me how you're trying to say that incels are a bigger failure than divorced mgtow faggots. It becomes more and more obvious that you are an infiltrator and not an incel and that you need to be permabanned from here. Mods are just a bit slow and incompetent. Maybe they'll get you eventually.
You have to be braindead to believe in such absolutes.
Not all females are psychopaths, just like not all incels are mentally ill autists.
No, we actually don't. Every human being since the dawn of time wanted to be in a relationship for reasons. The MGTOW fags are a minority. They made bad decisions and are now projecting their flaws onto everybody else. Well guess what, the rest of the world outside of the MGTOW bubble still enjoys being in relationships.
They are not. Generalizations are never true. That is a fact. The blackpill has always been about facts, never about ideology.They are.
How do you have 18,000 posts and still be this bluepilled? Are those posts just you peddling this same thinking?
I'm the OG blackpiller, I love facts. You love generalizations and ideology. You're not blackpilled, you're a moron whos terminally online, trapped in his echo chambers.
We are the same species. That's a fact.
Yes, it does. Do you know the difference between involuntarily and voluntarily? The moment you decide that you don't want a romantic relationship, you're now voluntarily celibate, which makes you not an incel. Just read the rules&faq, it's literally written there.
foids are evil if they don't have a man beating them constantly mashallah
another thing I just realized about his claims.High-IQ as fuck. GeckoBus does not disappoint.
Yeah, this is an example of the black-and-white fallacy. "They're in a long-term relationship [and assuming they're happy because of this and not just a "they're happy" and "they're in a long-term relationship," which is non-sequitur] and they're happy! So there must not be anything bad going on in their life!" This is ridiculous.
I started this, sorry for derailing the thread.
Dude has been here since I was in elementary school and STILL is bluepilled. Can't make this shit up.
That's not enough. You have to read studies.
Literally bottom-tier insults too.
View attachment 1140449
>ad hominem
So you think men's only value comes from having a job? Meanwhile, females live on their asses everyday.
Going through the thread, you have a massive inferiority complex and are probably projecting.
You use the same shaming tactics as you do now, so it IS relevant.
He gives me boomer vibes more. He can't get off his high horse.
I literally reported him for saying "not all women are evil" (a rejection of the blackpill and exactly what you said: that females are a hivemind and are also psychopathic, meaning that ALL females are evil) and the mod said "This is something to be argued over, not something that contradicts the blackpill." They really don't want to ban him because he's an 18,000–post count, 2018 user and that somehow makes him better than the rest of us despite aggressively shilling the bluepill and putting females on a pedestal.
So far, he has been:
- Victim-blaming
- Female-worshiping/pandering
- Anti-ND/ND-shaming
- Anti-NEET
@Fed Link @PLA1092 @Uggo Mongo @proudWEED ha ha He needs a vacation so he can actually go and read the blackpill, and because of the mentioned above reasons.
He says not all women are the same, but constantly implies all men are the same.
For example when he says a man is not complete without a woman - every man?
That would imply all men are the same, in the sense that all men need women to be happy and so on.
He does this multiple times if you pay attention.
So while he advocates to not reduce women to a hivemind, he does this constantly to men.
So the guy who admitted that he doesn't want to have a girlfriend (not an incel) is reporting me now?
Why do I have to defend myself for wanting to be in a romantic relationship with a woman on an INCEL forum?
Rules and FAQ
- Incel (Allowed):
- A man (18+) who desires a romantic relationship but is unable to enter one.
- A man (18+) who desires a romantic relationship but is unable to enter one.
Mods, please do your job and get these autistic MGTOW grayfags out of here. They're attacking incels for wanting to have a relationship. Clean up your forum, man.
not a molecule
cucks.is
Wrong.
He said all women are the same.
I said men have basic needs (a woman, procreation).
Basic needs are the same for all men (maslows pyramid of needs), that's just a scientific fact.
I never said all men "are" the same, though.
and women dont have basic needs, got it.
Can you stop writing like a mentally ill autist, it's kinda annoying to deal with people like you.
Women have basic needs, too, but that doesn't make them all the same.
Last edited:
meds
Nothing again.
you also ignored my reply where I asked you if @lonelysince2006 is part of nature.
You ignored it because you know you have no answer for that.
Your retarded naturalist worldview where appealing to nature is a not a fallacy leads the inevitable conclusion that everything is permissible because in your view literally nothing is outside of nature. Everything is natural. Technology, people being gay, straight, murder, pedophilia - it's all natural. @lonelysince2006
On that basis, if @lonelysince2006 chooses not to seek out a woman as a partner, that would be natural, since his decision to do that is just nature running its course.
You also ignored the countless evidences we showed of women being more similar to each other than men:
The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing
Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets
girlpowermarketing.com
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/
In-group favoritism - Wikipedia
How women organize social networks different from men - Scientific Reports
Superpositions of social networks, such as communication, friendship, or trade networks, are called multiplex networks, forming the structural backbone of human societies. Novel datasets now allow quantification and exploration of multiplex networks. Here we study gender-specific differences of...
www.nature.com
Further, "basic needs" is not scientific. You can not empirically determine moral principles. This has been known for a long time.
Scientific = observation and experimentation.
Before you jump to the conclusion that your observations are somehow objective and somehow its all natural - like I said earlier, we also observe bonobo monkeys blowing each other, animals torturing other animals etc. We observe spiders injecting witless insects with acid and dissolve their insides before drinking them like pop soda. I guess that's fine for humans too then.
This is why appealing to nature is a fallacy, and the appeal to nature fallacy is also related to how you can not determine moral laws using science:
Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
This means that even if you observe happy couples, that would not imply an ought, aka that men should persue women. You are making an arbitrary jump from what IS (your observation) to and OUGHT, of how we ought to be have. There is no connection. I could also look at the same couples and determine that we ought not to do that, since my presupposition is that happiness is an illusion that is frail and not lasting, and only lasting things should be persued. Many eastern religions follow this kind of reasoning - see the buddhistic adages here:
Buddhism
Buddhism is one of the world’s largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India. Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana.
education.nationalgeographic.org
So for a devoutely buddhistic person, seeing happy couples constitutes a moral evil and should not necessarily be persued.
All this goes to show that the conclusions you draw from your observations are arbitrary and a non-sequitor.
Another problem from philosophy of science you are obviously not aware off is the issue of falsification as proposed by Karl Popper:
This is part of why appealing to nature is a fallacy - since everything is nature, anything would verify the claim that something is "natural."
Thus any claim about something being right because it is natural can not be disproved. Even me saying something is not natural would be natural, since I am part of nature.
So your appeal falls flat.
Now onto your claim that Maslow somehow established basic human needs.
FIrst off, this chiefly falls under the aformentioned is/ought fallacy issue. Even if Maslows participants replies with yes/no to certain questions about values/needs/desires, that would just constitute an "is" (a description of something currently being the case) and not a prescription (how we should act universally speaking, on a moral basis).
Further highlighting this problem is that his value judgements were determined by asking people in our current society. If you asked someone in the Atzek empire the same questions, they would most certainly tell you that sacrificing humans is a moral good and detrimental for every Azteks mental health.
Maslows pyramid is merely an arbitrary survey of the values of the people in our time. In the middle ages for instance, Maslows highest "good" or "need" of self-actualization by transcending moral convention would have been seen as utterly foolish if not mentally ill.
In some cultures this is still the case, take some of the more collective family oriented ones like the middle east or asia for example. If an individual were to "self actualize" himself over the conventions of these respective culture groups, he would be ostracized.
Aside of these more obvious flaws, there are other issues with Maslows attempt at quantifying human values and needs (not that these can be quantified anyway since we can't measure human values like idk, how much someone likes chocolate). I will not get into these now though, I have written enough and it's late.
Last edited:
By virtue of being human, I have higher mental faculties than all creatures on this Earth.
I can defy my want to fuck.
My brain tells me females are psychopathic and I shouldn't go near them even though my body says something else.No, that's just you. You don't get to determine what healthy male behavior is. Unhealthy behavior is being obsessed with females to the point that even when you know you can't get one, you still are pining after them and want to be with one, associate with them. This is a mental illness.
You can be blackpilled and MGTOW. They're not contradictory.
Again, you can be blackpilled and MGTOW. You can acknowledge the fact that wanting female companionship is inherently natural to men, but you can also say that for so-and-so reason(s), you won't, and this is better than pining over women for so-and-so reason(s).
Obsession is a mental illness. That is a fact.Having a female will not make you die. And you can opt out of the rat race. I won't pursue females because I never had a chance. There's no point. You saying this means that you want men to be in a constant rat race to get females despite how over it is for some of them.
Wanting or not wanting a female makes zero difference.
You don't need them to survive. You can live without them. Stop trying to justify being a female worshiper.
Again, I am not an animal and I don't need to conform to nature's idea of what makes a man's worth. And as an anti-natalist, I am against having children.
- Appeal to nature
This is completely subjective.
You are serving them because you still want them and put them on a pedestal despite being hypothetically pussyless until your dying days.
What does this even mean?
All females are bad partners. You are a massive tradcoper if you think otherwise.
Most of it is, according to stats. Females get bored ("incompatibility") and divorce men the most. There was a good thread that I can't seem to find now that had a pie chart with all of this.
First of all, you're blaming the man for making a wrong decision, where it could just be the female being a psychopath (need for stimulation/proneness to boredom, parasitic lifestyle, promiscuous sexual behavior, Impulsivity, lack of realistic long-term goals; even "many short-term marital relationships" is one of the traits). Second, you're a bigger failure according to your own logic because the MGTOW dude at least had a potential to reproduce or even did reproduce, yet you don't and will never have.
You say the same thing by shilling your nature crap and saying anyone who doesn't fuck isn't accomplished.
Cope. I literally linked you the thread. Read it before responding to me.
- Appeal to nature
Just because all my ancestors did something means I have to do the same thing? No.
- Appeal to majority
- Victim-blaming
What does this prove?
This is generalizing generalizations. You're ironically going against your own logic.
Not all generalizations are false, and this is one that isn't. Read the thread. That is a fact.@GeckoBus The self-contradiction is strong with this one.
A Chihuahua and Great Dane are in the same species, yet they're drastically different. Females are drastically different from men by being psychopaths. That's a fact.
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
That's a fact!
Nice catchphrase.
He's a true feminist.
The difference is you believe in true love (bluepilled) and I don't (blackpilled). In recognition of that fact, I don't want anything to do with females. That's a fact.
I thought you said we're the same species and therefore the same? Why are you back-tracking?
Based.On that basis, if @@lonelysince2006 chooses not to seek out a woman as a partner, that would be natural, since his decision to do that is just nature running its course.
Gigahigh-IQ. I will remember this the next time I make an argument.
T
I genuinely don’t think I can win a fight against a woman
I cum hard in the front yard! YES!This is generalizing generalizations. You're ironically going against your own logic.
@@GeckoBus The self-contradiction is strong with this one
Exactly!
It's like when people say, "you should never pick an extreme position, always take a balanced approach"
-> that's literally an extremist position since it says "you should never do x."
It's impossible not to be an extremist because the truth is by definition divisive. I splits everything into two things - truth and falsehood.
Hence Jesus says in the bible, I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus is the truth in the bible. In the christian worldview, truth is a person, hence Jesus is divisive.
Besides this, nice_try constantly generalizes. Every time he makes an appeal to basic needs or what you should do or not do, he applies universal moral laws that he considers obvious and unbreakable to everyone. Yet he never gives a reason for this. I have already explained in my previous reply why grounding these in nature does not work. His only moves are to ground them in himself as authority, which would be arbitrary and a form of might-is-right, or he grounds them in God.
The first option would not work though because might-is-right as a justification criteria invalidates his own claim. It's circular reasoning to say might is right, since your justification for why might is right is also might is right. Additionally, might is right leads to a form of determinism that eliminates the possibility of knowledge and person-hood.
This is so because there are no choices we can make that we do not choose. If you did not actively make a decision, there would be no choice.
But if volition, aka might is right, is the only thing behind every choice, and there is no way to determine which choices are good or bad, then there are no choices. All choices are "good" because as long as you will them, want them etc, they are good. This leads to something like "everything I want is good, because I want it. Why is it good that I want it? Because I want it."
On this model, there are no bad choices. Or rather, there is no choice at all. Anything you do, you would have done anyway. So you have turned yourself into a mechanism and eliminated free will.
The problem is, without free will, you can not know things. Knowledge requires choice. It requires an object of knowledge, and a knower choosing to know. If you can't make choices then you have turned yourself from a conscious agent who picks and chooses bits of knowledge and compares them based on criteria like good, bad into a earthworm that just mechanically eats whatever is thrown in his way, unconsciously.
When you plug in your USB drive into a laptop, you would not say, "the computer has learned the contents of the usb drive." No, the computer just consumes whatever you feed it. If there is a virus on the USB drive, it will just consume it anyway. It makes no distinctions between the data on the computer. Even when you run anti-virus software to filter the contents of the USB drive, the anti-virus software is just a digital coin-sorting mechanism. It's like building a dam and diverting the incoming water through different holes into the dam, some of it going into a pond, some of it back into the river.
Nobody would say that the dam is acting intelligently or somehow choosing to pick which water goes where.
But I digress. This is why these types of argument do not work. Appealing to nature, authority, consensus - all of these fall flat. No matter the claim, we can always ask ourselves, "what is the criteria by which the claim is justified?" Like, what is the justification for why this is true. This is often a much more important question than looking at the claim itself.
I have explained this before with claims such as "one man can impregnate multiple women, so men are less valuable, evolutionary speaking."
This is wrong on many levels.
Let's look for the criteria by which the claims are justified.
There are none.
It's a non-sequitur. The premise that one man can impregnate multiple women is an IS, the rest is all OUGHT.
I could also claim men are more valuable based on the same premise.
The next issue is that evolution does not know advantages or values. If we are true to evolutionists claims, then evolution is completely random. But if it is random, then there is no selection. Based on this, we literally can not know which traits or behaviors are advantageous or not. There are no advantages or disadvantages in evolution. Something that may seem like a disadvantage to us may be an advantage without us knowing.
Take for example that monogamous, religious people have more children on average. Does this not make them "evolutionary successful?" By this metric, evolutionists should view religion as a "successful adaptation" - that is, if they view having a high reproductive rate as "good." - which again, is an arbitrary value judgement which they can't make if they believe in evolution.
Why can't they make it? Because evolution and appealing to nature fallacy are identical. If everything is evolution/nature, then there is nothing not proving it true, since everything is evolution/nature. Technology, religion, murder - it would all be evolution.
But anyway, enough of this.
Faggot foid kys already
#killallfoids
I know I made several super long replies and I apologize for that. I will keep this one short.
Him trying to root love in women is the most simp shit ever. He is basically saying, love as a concept is inherently grounded in the female sex, and there is no love outside that. It's like women are deities bestowing love upon us, like gods.
This concept suffers from every single fallacy I have mentioned so far. If implies that when a woman dies, love dies for example. Further, it is a category error. Love is a metaphysical concept, women are a physical entity. There is no overlap between these categories.
Like I said before, any value judgments, including ones about love, require a justification. They need to be grounded in something. The options are limited to fallacies and the divine. If you ground them in nature, then you are being arbitrary and ad hoc. If you ground them in authority like yourself or a group, you are committing fallacy of authority, might-is-right and appeal to consensus.
The only option to ground love is in the divine. And since love can not be impersonal, since love requires an object of love and something to BE loved proactively, the divine object in question has to be a person God.
He can not get around this. Any attempt at grounding love in anything but a universal metaphysical basis will fail and reduce love to a mechanism, which is fallacious since love requires person-hood, which a mechanism does not have. A river does not transport salmon to the coast because it loves fish.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
