I'm surprised this got posted, as I can't even think of an actually logically sound counterargument, figured that those cucks would ignore it.
But if you notice the comments, they're mostly mentioning veterans, the living sacrifices of war. Tell me, where exactly in my thread did I talk about them? I was specifically referring to the men who died in combat. Not the survivors, not the relatives of the deceased, but the casualties themselves. My argument is that it would be preferable to die in combat than live as an incel. That the negative utility accumulated over the course of our lives would suggest that survival is no longer within our best interest, that society doesn't even see us as unfortunate victims, and that the freedom of modern women is dependent upon our loneliness, no more no less.
This means that those comments are either red herrings, or that those cucks are too stupid to understand a simple chain of reasoning.
I didn't mention this in my original thread and it's not relevant to the feelings of us as individuals, however if you want to talk about the pain of relatives, I suspect our loved ones would suffer less overall had we died in combat. That they would be able to see us as heroes, having died for some greater purpose, regardless of the nature of that belief being a delusional cope. That our relatives wouldn't have to think about us as genetic garbage, as living monuments to their own failure at life's primary function. With us living as incels, they don't have the capacity to fool themselves in this manner, they have to face our ineptitude and ever present, creeping ontological purposelessness which permeates our existence as subhumans whom they're responsible for existing.
