"Don't hate Chad for having sex with all the women. If you were Chad you would do the same thing."

[VileGeneticTrash]

Angry at chad? What for?

I'm simply upset I'm on the wrong side of the genetic fence. Hypergamy helps prevent ugly men from being born and suffering, it is a good thing. Imagine a world where women only found shit like personality and game attractive, what a total fucking nightmare. The human race would stall for the rest of eternity. You should be angry at subhuman women for reproducing, and the brutality of life. I would gladly kill myself and every ugly incel if it meant no ugly people and assorted genetic failures had to be born. Ugliness is a cancer, it and its carriers need to be obliterated.

 

[Robtical]

Angry at chad? What for?

I'm simply upset I'm on the wrong side of the genetic fence. Hypergamy helps prevent ugly men from being born and suffering, it is a good thing. Imagine a world where women only found shit like personality and game attractive, what a total fucking nightmare. The human race would stall for the rest of eternity. You should be angry at subhuman women for reproducing, and the brutality of life. I would gladly kill myself and every ugly incel if it meant no ugly people and assorted genetic failures had to be born. Ugliness is a cancer, it and its carriers need to be obliterated.

As long as ugly femoids reproduce then the "ugliness problem" can't be solved. We need to stop chads from fucking below their looksmatch. If chad is hogging all the whores to himself, even the ones 2 points below his looksmatch, then we have the right to feel the urge to hunt him down in a dark alley.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

The fact that we here on Incels.me lament injustice at all means that there's such a thing as consistent justice and consistent injustice, it's just we need to make sure that there's justice for all.

Ever noticed that they there outside of incels.is don't lament the particular application of "injustice" as it relates to you?

It means exactly that secular morality is not consistent and is mostly a pragmatic issue. Do you sincerely believe in "muh goodness of the heart" when it is clear that most people do not think for themselves, much less feel for anyone else?

The model works for most of the world. Even if I'm poor, it doesn't mean theft is justified, it just means I don't have the means to feed myself.

Same shit over and over and over and over. Why don't you have the means to feed yourself? If you hadn't been born in this particular place in this particular time in history, you very well could have.

People steal and justify it to themselves all the time when they need to. Why? "They were 'bad people'". Oh okay. What is a 'bad person' but one who transgresses the dominant (not universal) moral order without legitimacy, the same one you can't seem to see your way out of.

We have the right to do certain things, but not other things. We have standards about what can be owed to you. Not just needed, but owed. These standards aren't just in place because we're at peace right now.

Which "we"? The "we" that doesn't have your interest in mind and with whom you do not have a durable "social contract".

When chaos kicks up, that doesn't suddenly mean "Well, I guess I don't really deserve any rights, that was just because things were peaceful enough to support a system of rights and laws."

That's exactly what it means, because that's what will happen. Where were those "rights" during the Rwandan genocide? "Yuman rights". What if such a state of conflict extended across the entire globe and there were no stable international tribunal to promulgate "self-evident" rights?

 

[Robtical]

Do you sincerely believe in "muh goodness of the heart" when it is clear that most people do not think for themselves, much less feel for anyone else?

Some people are low iq and need to be lead like sheep, they already don't mind when cops abuse them and violate their rights, so they should be ok with enforced monogamy.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Ever noticed that they there outside of incels.is don't lament the particular application of "injustice" as it relates to you?

It means exactly that secular morality is not consistent and is mostly a pragmatic issue. Do you sincerely believe in "muh goodness of the heart" when it is clear that most people do not think for themselves, much less feel for anyone else?



Same shit over and over and over and over. Why don't you have the means to feed yourself? If you hadn't been born in this particular place in this particular time in history, you very well could have.

People steal and justify it to themselves all the time when they need to. Why? "They were 'bad people'". Oh okay. What is a 'bad person' but one who transgresses the dominant (not universal) moral order without legitimacy, the same one you can't seem to see your way out of.



Which "we"? The "we" that doesn't have your interest in mind and with whom you do not have a durable "social contract".



That's exactly what it means, because that's what will happen. Where were those "rights" during the Rwandan genocide? "Yuman rights". What if such a state of conflict extended across the entire globe and there were no stable international tribunal to promulgate "self-evident" rights?

Even in a Rwandan genocide, those rights would still apply. It's just bad people would start listening to their baser instincts. Even in desperation, I and everyone else knows what right and wrong is. We might not all obey what right and wrong is, and some of us might not have much choice either. But if I steal something out of desperation, it's not because the person I'm robbing doesn't deserve to keep what I stole from them. It's because I was able to convince myself to do it despite that person's rights. I don't justify my theft by saying "That gas station was bad."

On top of that, just because I don't have means doesn't mean the moral order is wrong. Let's say we did institute a mating system were all humans mated for life, and their choices didn't matter. Is that good because now I can have sex? Or bad because now we're less free to make choices? And because we decide that a person's self belongs to the people? That you can't offer yourself to too many people because your body is a commodity that the system decides what happens to? There's a lot of interpretations about where freedoms should end and obligations should begin, but agency of self is one of those universal things. You can tax my money because people with the freedom to form government decided that they wanted to contribute to social programs for everyone, but you've got a lot harder of a sell to tell me that I can't be with a person.

And that's not just me. By "we" I mean everyone. Incels, normies, Chads, Stacies, Beckies, Jennifers, we all have different means, but we all know that there's things you can't just take from people and things you can't just say belong to people without claim.

 

[Robtical]

You can tax my money because people with the freedom to form government decided that they wanted to contribute to social programs for everyone, but you've got a lot harder of a sell to tell me that I can't be with a person.

Taxing your money and not giving you anything is worse than enforced monogamy. 30% of your money goes to single mom chad dick riders, feminist programs that fuck over incels, domestic violence shelters, grants for femoids only, etc. The least they can do is give us government funded hookers.

 

[Italcel]

Chad worshipping is a low iq lookism-tier cancer

"Chad are bros fellow incel" indeed, especially when they fuck our 1-2-3/10 looksmatch via dating apps

 

[UBERCEL]

the government needs to make it mandatory to abort your first child if it is a male. this way there will be more women than men, so we can all be chads

this sentence is more powerful than chemo ffs.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Taxing your money and not giving you anything is worse than enforced monogamy. 30% of your money goes to single mom chad dick riders, feminist programs that fuck over incels, domestic violence shelters, grants for femoids only, etc. The least they can do is give us government funded hookers.

We also have the freedom to protest the use of our taxes. Maybe I think free condoms for college kids is wasteful spending, and any adult in charge of their own sex life should buy their own condoms.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Let's say we did institute a mating system were all humans mated for life, and their choices didn't matter. Is that good because now I can have sex? Or bad because now we're less free to make choices?

This is exactly what I have spent my time in this thread arguing against. "Personal choice" is a childish libertarian phantom - it is a "right" anchored firmly within the secular morality of the modern West. "People should be able to do anything they want to and anything that gets in their way is bad". It is an anarchic and incoherent kind of ethics. It is the essence of liberal society and characteristic of civilizations in decline.

I'm not going to convince you of anything if you hold this "personal choice" to be the highest good. Choices are not made in vacuo. A system of rights should ultimately serve to keep a society stable and functional, not as some kind of nihilistic justification for the removal of constraints, to allow for the imbalanced piling of resources in certain corners, tipping the whole structure over. I refer to what I said here:

The question is: which rights work?

In order to develop a viable system of rights, some sacrifices of agency have to be made in order to hold up the structure as a whole. "Autonomy" is not morally positive - it is rather the removal of useful constraints on human behavior - and just devolves toward anarchy and conflict where resources are hoarded and battles are fought over them. At present, things seem to be in limbo between broad social liberalism and specific instances of heavy-handed control to keep "undesirable elements" from ruining everyone else's party.

Bolded was remarkable for the way in which it immediately incited moral panic. It's so deeply burrowed into everyone's head that "freedom = gud", whether or not they're able to exercise this "freedom" for themselves, that a measured and reasonable statement like this, a simple description of the logic of order, is taken as "Communism" by some people, "Fascism" by others, even "Theocracy" - i.e. the bad guys, don't hurt muh freedom!

Right now, you are the one being controlled. Your liberty is the sacrifice at the altar of liberty.

Even in a Rwandan genocide, those rights would still apply. It's just bad people would start listening to their baser instincts. Even in desperation, I and everyone else knows what right and wrong is. We might not all obey what right and wrong is, and some of us might not have much choice either.

See Thomas Hobbes on this. They would not apply, because things would have regressed to a state premature to "rights", i.e. nature. Strife, conflict, and chaos is the ground floor, the baseline, the essential state of life, which is reined in by constructed ideas of justice - which are being stripped away now to leave only a weak support. Things become more and more "natural" under liberalism, yet it still manages to disguise itself as the highest and most developed form of "justice" possible - evident by the claim that it is "self-evident".

But if I steal something out of desperation, it's not because the person I'm robbing doesn't deserve to keep what I stole from them. It's because I was able to convince myself to do it despite that person's rights. I don't justify my theft by saying "That gas station was bad."

You don't, because you don't rob gas stations and you don't have to. The people who do rob gas stations are perfectly able to justify their theft by saying "that gas station, or that x, that thing that is not me is bad."

Let's say we did institute a mating system were all humans mated for life, and their choices didn't matter. Is that good because now I can have sex?

It is good because it gives everyone a clear opportunity to have sex and lets them know clearly what they need to do in order to get it.

 

[FrothySolutions]

This is exactly what I have spent my time in this thread arguing against. "Personal choice" is a childish libertarian phantom - it is a "right" anchored firmly within the secular morality of the modern West. "People should be able to do anything they want to and anything that gets in their way is bad". It is an anarchic and incoherent kind of ethics. It is the essence of liberal society and characteristic of civilizations in decline.

I'm not going to convince you of anything if you hold this "personal choice" to be the highest good. Choices are not made in vacuo. A system of rights should ultimately serve to keep a society stable and functional, not as some kind of nihilistic justification for the removal of constraints, to allow for the imbalanced piling of resources in certain corners, tipping the whole structure over. I refer to what I said here:



Bolded was remarkable for the way in which it immediately incited moral panic. It's so deeply burrowed into everyone's head that "freedom = gud", whether or not they're able to exercise this "freedom" for themselves, that a measured and reasonable statement like this, a simple description of the logic of order, is taken as "Communism" by some people, "Fascism" by others, even "Theocracy" - i.e. the bad guys, don't hurt muh freedom!

Right now, you are the one being controlled. Your liberty is the sacrifice at the altar of liberty.



See Thomas Hobbes on this. They would not apply, because things would have regressed to a state premature to "rights", i.e. nature. Strife, conflict, and chaos is the ground floor, the baseline, the essential state of life, which is reined in by constructed ideas of justice - which are being stripped away now to leave only a weak support. Things become more and more "natural" under liberalism, yet it still manages to disguise itself as the highest and most developed form of "justice" possible - evident by the claim that it is "self-evident".



You don't, because you don't rob gas stations and you don't have to. The people who do rob gas stations are perfectly able to justify their theft by saying "that gas station, or that x, that thing that is not me is bad."



It is good because it gives everyone a clear opportunity to have sex and lets them know clearly what they need to do in order to get it.

Personal choice is the basis of law itself. Law is about what the individual should be allowed to do, and what the other individual should be protected from. What belongs to the individual and what doesn't. That's why you can't tell people who they can and can't be with, because that means the self belongs to society. The self should belong to the self. There's a lot of things that belong to the community, but not the self. We didn't decide this just because we assumed everyone had the means to buy and sell themselves. Even if the whole world was lonely, you couldn't enforce mandatory social interaction. Maybe I don't wanna hang out with the people outside. My status as a hermit isn't for the community to decide. And most communities wouldn't choose to enforce it, or even be able to.

And why don't I rob gas stations? I could rob gas stations, but even if I did I'd know it was wrong. Right and wrong don't just exist in times of peace. It's just desperation makes us lose sight of it. Chaos and strife are for animals who have no right and wrong. Creatures who can empathize, like humans, we have a sense of right and wrong. So before we hurt someone we're like "Wait, I shouldn't do that, because that hurts the person and that's wrong."

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Personal choice is the basis of law itself. Law is about what the individual should be allowed to do, and what the other individual should be protected from. What belongs to the individual and what doesn't. That's why you can't tell people who they can and can't be with, because that means the self belongs to society. The self should belong to the self. There's a lot of things that belong to the community, but not the self. We didn't decide this just because we assumed everyone had the means to buy and sell themselves. Even if the whole world was lonely, you couldn't enforce mandatory social interaction. Maybe I don't wanna hang out with the people outside. My status as a hermit isn't for the community to decide. And most communities wouldn't choose to enforce it, or even be able to.

I'm pitching tennis balls at the wall at this point.

And why don't I rob gas stations? I could rob gas stations, but even if I did I'd know it was wrong.

If people aren't inherently good, then why do gas stations have full shelves? Because it's a lot harder to rob gas stations and get away with it than you apparently think.

Right and wrong don't just exist in times of peace. It's just desperation makes us lose sight of it. Chaos and strife are for animals who have no right and wrong. Creatures who can empathize, like humans, we have a sense of right and wrong. So before we hurt someone we're like "Wait, I shouldn't do that, because that hurts the person and that's wrong."

They do not and I believe I have already made a decent case as to why several times.

 

[FrothySolutions]

I'm pitching tennis balls at the wall at this point.



If people aren't inherently good, then why do gas stations have full shelves? Because it's a lot harder to rob gas stations and get away with it than you apparently think.



They do not and I believe I have already made a decent case as to why several times.

The only counterpoint you've offered is that "In times of crisis, people do bad, and in times of plenty people leave other people alone." That doesn't mean right and wrong don't apply, it just means that people become desperate and appeal to carnal instinct. That doesn't make it right. There are easier things to rob than a gas station, and those things don't get robbed because it occurs to people "Hey, that's mean enough that it violates that person's rights." And on top of that, the fact that robberies do occur doesn't mean morality is dead. It's like saying "Hey, murders happen, that must mean morality doesn't exist and no one really cares about anybody."

In order for this to make sense, you would have to explain why I don't just haul off and start violating people's rights. I promise, I could pretty easily rob a gas station. But I couldn't justify it in my heart because I know it's wrong. It's not just because I don't wanna go to jail/be banned from the store, I believe in that store's right to sell potato skins.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

The only counterpoint you've offered is that "In times of crisis, people do bad, and in times of plenty people leave other people alone." That doesn't mean right and wrong don't apply, it just means that people become desperate and appeal to carnal instinct. That doesn't make it right. There are easier things to rob than a gas station, and those things don't get robbed because it occurs to people "Hey, that's mean enough that it violates that person's rights." And on top of that, the fact that robberies do occur doesn't mean morality is dead. It's like saying "Hey, murders happen, that must mean morality doesn't exist and no one really cares about anybody."

In order for this to make sense, you would have to explain why I don't just haul off and start violating people's rights. I promise, I could pretty easily rob a gas station. But I couldn't justify it in my heart because I know it's wrong. It's not just because I don't wanna go to jail/be banned from the store, I believe in that store's right to sell potato skins.

I have amassed almost a pageful of posts, to which I have received as a series of responses: "freedom".

Whether or not you could "easily" rob a gas station , most people could not. If you actually think you take "muh freedom" that seriously, do you think every else does and do you think it is exactly the same idea of freedom?

Back and forth:

"Morality is not absolute"

"Yes it is, I believe in freedom"

 

[lastchancel]

Yes, but I am not a Chad, I am an incel. Therefore, I want the Chads slaughtered for taking my women. If you defend Chad having sex with the woman that would be yours in a monogamous society, you are literally a cuckold.

low iq cope

How is it "your" woman?

this, 100 shiney ones says poster is IT plant

 

[BonoboPower]

"The woman that would be yours in a monogamous society"

Protozoa level IQ

 

[FrothySolutions]

I have amassed almost a pageful of posts, to which I have received as a series of responses: "freedom".

Whether or not you could "easily" rob a gas station , most people could not. If you actually think you take "muh freedom" that seriously, do you think every else does and do you think it is exactly the same idea of freedom?

Back and forth:

"Morality is not universal"

"Yes it is, I believe in freedom"

Yes, I think most people understand that theft is wrong, but certain things aren't theft. I think the reason most people do things is because they want to, and that those things don't violate what other people are owed. I think most people believe you shouldn't rob a gas station because the gas station owns its potato skins. And I think most people believe your self doesn't belong to the community because yourself belongs to yourself first and foremost.

 

[lastchancel]

Chad is a bro. He has sex with my future wife for me so that I don't have to take her virginity. What an awesome bro.

you aren't going to have a wife if you are incel4life

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Yes, I think most people understand that theft is wrong, but certain things aren't theft. I think the reason most people do things is because they want to, and that those things don't violate what other people are owed.

My point is that the conception of this is not fixed. If there is an impulse toward the development of the idea "right and wrong" that exists in most people, I believe it to be clear that they do not know what to do with it and, moreover, it only emerges when it is able to.

And when you look beneath the surface: how did the gas station come into acquisition of anything? If you steal the chips, is a person stealing from you still stealing? There is a fundamental problem of legitimacy that underlies liberal society: why do people have things I don't? "They worked for it". No they fuckin didn't. The question of sexual liberalism is twofold: what do I need to do to "get" a person and why should anyone be able to "have" more than one person. In an alternative society, these questions could be solved. I hate the "freedom" argument because it is myopic and complacently resigned. Things could easily be different. People could start feeling "moral" in an entirely different manner, one resembling older feelings that have already existed and, unfortunately, perished.

As stated above:

what is the particular set of laws (read: morality) to which we are held? They can be and have been different. That is the crucial point. We could easily live in a monogamous society, where people, walled in by a different hegemonic conception of ethics, would instead say, "but I don't have a right to take other men's women all for myself".

This point seems not to stick. I haven't received an argument as to why morality is static and universal, beyond "I feel this way. People who don't? They're bad." It's a copout.

What you might argue is a sort of Kantian ethics according to a categorical imperative, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. But this does not locate morality as an absolute natural impulse in man, but rather a rational construction to regulate behavior.

And I think most people believe your self doesn't belong to the community because yourself belongs to yourself first and foremost.

I.e. no one is entitled to anything at all.

 

[FrothySolutions]

My point is that the conception of this is not fixed. If there is an impulse toward the development of the idea "right and wrong" that exists in most people, I believe it to be clear that they do not know what to do with it and, moreover, it only emerges when it is able to.

And when you look beneath the surface: how did the gas station come into acquisition of anything? If you steal the chips, is a person stealing from you still stealing? There is a fundamental problem of legitimacy that underlies liberal society: why do people have things I don't? "They worked for it". No they fuckin didn't. The question of sexual liberalism is twofold: what do I need to do to "get" a person and why should anyone be able to "have" more than one person. In an alternative society, these questions could be solved. I hate the "freedom" argument because it is myopic and complacently resigned. Things could easily be different. People could start feeling "moral" in an entirely different manner, one resembling older feelings that have already existed and, unfortunately, perished.

As stated above:



This point seems not to stick. I haven't received an argument as to why morality is static and universal, beyond "I feel this way. People who don't? They're bad." It's a copout.

What you might argue is a sort of Kantian ethics according to a categorical imperative, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. But this does not locate morality as an absolute natural impulse in man, but rather a rational construction to regulate behavior.



I.e. no one is entitled to anything at all.

Agency over yourself is fixed though. You don't owe yourself to society's marriage lottery. I have control over myself, it's the most basic of rights. I've acquired my own right to be with people because society doesn't own me and can't tell me who to be with. I own me. And the person I'm with, society doesn't own them either. That's static, and intrinsic to the idea of right and wrong. The fact that I should be able to do things, but if I should be able to do things, so should other people. To say that these women belong to other men, that's not true. Because it says the self belongs to society and it doesn't. And it never did.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Agency over yourself is fixed though.

Not in anything beyond the most rudimentary outlines of a civilization. Nobody is perfectly autonomous because it is not compatible with complex societies. Why do you pay taxes?

You don't owe yourself to society's marriage lottery.

It is a structural question, not a compulsory one. How about just a "marriage lottery" where foids aren't free to disburse themselves to every single man they want (5% of them)? Joining it in the first place can still be an act of volition.

I have control over myself, it's the most basic of rights. I've acquired my own right to be with people because society doesn't own me and can't tell me who to be with. I own me. And the person I'm with, society doesn't own them either. That's static, and intrinsic to the idea of right and wrong. The fact that I should be able to do things, but if I should be able to do things, so should other people. To say that these women belong to other men, that's not true. Because it says the self belongs to society and it doesn't. And it never did.

Take this to its logical conclusion and there is no "society".

 

[Robtical]

We also have the freedom to protest the use of our taxes. Maybe I think free condoms for college kids is wasteful spending, and any adult in charge of their own sex life should buy their own condoms.

Then we have the right to protest and get government funded hookers, the blackpill will soon get big enough where most normies will agree with it. All the cucked divorce, rape, and domestic violence laws must be thrown out as well.

 

[Deleted member 9229]

high IQ thread, incels who like chad are fucking cucks

 

[FrothySolutions]

Not in anything beyond the most rudimentary outlines of a civilization. Nobody is perfectly autonomous because it is not compatible with complex societies. Why do you pay taxes?



It is a structural question, not a compulsory one. How about just a "marriage lottery" where foids aren't free to disburse themselves to every single man they want (5% of them)? Joining it in the first place can still be an act of volition.



Take this to its logical conclusion and there is no "society".

Agency over yourself isn't the same as agency over your money. There are other factors that come into play when it comes to money. Your money isn't necessarily all yours in certain governments. That's why we pay taxes, and that's why tax codes vary from place to place.

And if I or someone else was to knowingly join and sign up for a marriage lottery, then fine, because they're making the choice to hand over their consent. They could just choose not to join it, and they'd have the right to do that. Same as how you can choose to join a convent where no one is allowed to have sex. But you have to first choose to do it. Choose to submit yourself to the convent. Choose to agree to conditions.

 

[Johny.speiz]

Solidarity and fraternity in all of that?

No chad will ever show to an Incel.
They are greedy and pat themselves down just for them.

Yet, it wasn't always like that, only when they foids "liberation movement and program" came across to give us even slighter chances.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Agency over yourself isn't the same as agency over your money. There are other factors that come into play when it comes to money. Your money isn't necessarily all yours in certain governments. That's why we pay taxes, and that's why tax codes vary from place to place.

There are always "other factors". Why can't people parade nude in the streets (yet)? "Agency over yourself isn't the same as agency over your body".

Behavior and resource accumulation is always regulated but how and to what degree?

And if I or someone else was to knowingly join and sign up for a marriage lottery, then fine, because they're making the choice to hand over their consent. They could just choose not to join it, and they'd have the right to do that. Same as how you can choose to join a convent where no one is allowed to have sex. But you have to first choose to do it. Choose to submit yourself to the convent. Choose to agree to conditions.

So what's the problem then?

Not a "marriage lottery", but just the curbing of the unlimited "right to

yourself ". Don't let sluts fornicate. Don't let Chad do it either. That's it.

People shouldn't be able to do whatever they want to as long as it's "victimless" along the main axis.

Behavior and resource accumulation is always regulated but how and to what degree?

 

[FrothySolutions]

There are always "other factors". Why can't people parade nude in the streets (yet)? "Agency over yourself isn't the same as agency over your body".

Behavior and resource accumulation is always regulated but how and to what degree?

You have agency over your body. But you don't have agency over my eyes or the public areas. You can parade nude in your house, there's no law that says you can't ever be naked, you have that freedom. But you also have an obligation to not expose yourself to me. Your body is sacred, and so are my eyes.

Not a "marriage lottery", but just the curbing of the unlimited "right to

yourself ". Don't let sluts fornicate. Don't let Chad do it either. That's it.

People shouldn't be able to do whatever they want to as long as it's "victimless" along the main axis.

Because I didn't choose to join this society of enforced monogamy. I have to choose to hand over that decision and live by that code. I have no obligation to save women for you, because those women don't belong to you, and they never belonged to you. Unless those women choose to say they belong to you.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

You have agency over your body. But you don't have agency over my eyes or the public areas. You can parade nude in your house, there's no law that says you can't ever be naked, you have that freedom. But you also have an obligation to not expose yourself to me. Your body is sacred, and so are my eyes.

K Pangloss. "Everything is exactly as it should be".

Why is it that nudity is an offense against your eyes but not stupid cunts in Daisy Dukes?

Degree.

Degree.

Degree.

Where is the limit set? Who decides?

Because I didn't choose to join this society of enforced monogamy. I have to choose to hand over that decision and live by that code. I have no obligation to save women for you, because those women don't belong to you, and they never belonged to you. Unless those women choose to say they belong to you.

"I didn't choose to join this society of liberalized sexuality. I don't have to etc., etc., etc."

Now suddenly obeying the dominant social morality (not this one, but another, easily conceivable one) is voluntaristic when you've spent three pages appealing to it?

Cuck mindset, dude. Why expend so much effort trying to justify the shit hand you've been dealt?

Cuck

Mindset

 

[Robtical]

Agency over yourself isn't the same as agency over your money.

Agency over your money is the same as having agency over yourself. Money = time and effort, but you seem to be ok with forcing someone to give away their time and effort like a slave, which is much worse than rape if you ask any incel. Plus there are many hookers who would be more than willing to exchange their pussy and ass for government money.

 

[FrothySolutions]

K Pangloss. "Everything is exactly as it should be".

Why is it that nudity is an offense against your eyes but not stupid cunts in Daisy Dukes?

Degree.

Degree.

Degree.

Where is the limit set? Who decides?

Where's the line that decides what "indecent exposure" is? It varies per area. I think in some places you can't wear Daisy Dukes. But you're not gonna find any place on Earth that says you can't be naked in private. There's no way to enforce it.

"I didn't choose to join this society of liberalized sexuality. I don't have to etc., etc., etc."

Now suddenly obeying the dominant social morality (not this one, but another, easily conceivable one) is voluntaristic when you've spent three pages appealing to it?

Cuck mindset, dude. Why expend so much effort trying to justify the shit hand you've been dealt?

Cuck

Mindset

You didn't "choose" to live in this society, but this society isn't taking any of your rights away. You can choose to live in a society that takes your rights away, but you haven't lost any rights in our society. Just what someone might assume is a right because "Well why can't I just take what I want regardless of where it comes from?" Rights end when they violate what other people have the right to. Freedoms and obligations.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Where's the line that decides what "indecent exposure" is? It varies per area. I think in some places you can't wear Daisy Dukes.

Degree and type of behavior regulated.

But you're not gonna find any place on Earth that says you can't be naked in private. There's no way to enforce it.

JFL. Who gives a shit? I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't actually affect me. The fact that you are incel shows that something affects you.

You didn't "choose" to live in this society, but this society isn't taking any of your rights away. You can choose to live in a society that takes your rights away, but you haven't lost any rights in our society. Just what someone might assume is a right because "Well why can't I just take what I want regardless of where it comes from?" Rights end when they violate what other people have the right to. Freedoms and obligations.

Absolutely hopeless, with particular reference to the bolded. Three pages of the same shit and a central point I made on the very first page (and fuckin reposted several times in the vain hope it would be addressed) is still being skirted right over. At this point I'm just going to let the too large body of posts I've made in this thread stand as evidence of my ideas on the matter.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Degree and type of behavior regulated.



JFL. Who gives a shit? I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't actually affect me. The fact that you are incel shows that something affects you.



Absolutely hopeless. Three pages of the same shit and a central point I made on the very first page (and fuckin reposted several times in the vain hope it would be addressed) is still being skirted right over. At this point I'm just going to let the too large body of posts I've made in this thread stand as evidence of my ideas on the matter.

There's a difference between something affecting you, and something affecting what you have the right to. That's why I raised the example. You wanna cite "degree and type of behavior," the reason we allow nudity in private but not in public is because not only is public indecency important to prevent, but restricting people's freedoms is important to prevent. You have to consider both. Your suggestion only addresses your needs. That's not how any kind of ethics system works. The whole reason we have ethics is because of the question of what's fair to subject the individual to.

And as far as the self, it's not fair to say to the individual that they can't do what they want with it. It's about being able to do what you want with what's yours. And the self is yours. As long as you don't take what's someone else's, you can do what you want with yourself. By being with the women I wanna be with, I don't take what's yours. It's never been yours.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

There's a difference between something affecting you, and something affecting what you have the right to. That's why I raised the example. You wanna cite "degree and type of behavior," the reason we allow nudity in private but not in public is because not only is public indecency important to prevent, but restricting people's freedoms is important to prevent. You have to consider both. Your suggestion only addresses your needs. That's not how any kind of ethics system works. The whole reason we have ethics is because of the question of what's fair to subject the individual to.

And as far as the self, it's not fair to say to the individual that they can't do what they want with it. It's about being able to do what you want with what's yours. And the self is yours. As long as you don't take what's someone else's, you can do what you want with yourself. By being with the women I wanna be with, I don't take what's yours. It's never been yours.

Ethical systems are not exclusively concerned with "thuh self" and I have no idea where you're getting that from.

Yeah, how did it take this long to figure out that "your rights end where another person's begin"? It's so neat, unequivocal, and easy to apply that everything has always been the same and always will be. Everyone can be themselves until bad people stop them.

This will have to be my last post in this thread.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Yeah, how did it take people this long to figure out that "your rights end where another person's begin"? It's so neat, unequivocal, and easy to apply that everything has always been the same and always will be. Everyone can be themselves until bad people stop them.

This will have to be my last post in this thread.

Times of crisis where order fails doesn't mean the ethics are wrong. It's just that people are desperate. I've said too, I brought up the potato skins. But you seem to think that the only reason I don't steal those potato skins is because I don't need to, and don't actually care about the rights of that gas station. Just because rule of law can fail in times of crisis doesn't mean rule of law is wrong. It just means people are selfish. In ways they know are wrong.

 

[Robtical]

You didn't "choose" to live in this society, but this society isn't taking any of your rights away. You can choose to live in a society that takes your rights away, but you haven't lost any rights in our society.

Being forced to give your time and labor to single mom whores and feminist sluts is the same as slavery for an incel. We are getting our rights taken away, we should at least be able to choose where our tax money goes, to make sure it doesn't go to causes we hate.

Just what someone might assume is a right because "Well why can't I just take what I want regardless of where it comes from?" Rights end when they violate what other people have the right to. Freedoms and obligations.

You can easily say it's foids obligation to raise a family with their looksmatch, and not turn into used up chad dick riding whores.

Just because rule of law can fail in times of crisis doesn't mean rule of law is wrong. It just means people are selfish. In ways they know are wrong.

There are plenty of laws that are stupid and wrong. All drug laws contribute more harm than they solve, and they take away people's freedoms, but you're not complaining about that. Only around 100 years ago slavery was legal, just because a "law" was written down and low iq cucks voted on it doesn't mean it's automatically good.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Being forced to give your time and labor to single mom whores and feminist sluts is the same as slavery for an incel. We are getting our rights taken away, we should at least be able to choose where our tax money goes, to make sure it doesn't go to causes we hate.

But you can do that. There are avenues you can take to protest the tax code and see it reformed.

You can easily say it's foids obligation to raise a family with their looksmatch, and not turn into used up chad dick riding whores.

But I couldn't, because no woman has any obligation to me, and I have no claim to any woman. And that's the way it's gonna stay because the right to one's self is the cornerstone of how we make our laws. If you hold someone to an obligation, or give someone a right, and someone in this equation can say "That violates my right to such and such" then you can't put that obligation or right into practice. Unless that obligation/right doesn't actually violate anyone's right to such and such.

There are plenty of laws that are stupid and wrong. All drug laws contribute more harm than they solve, and they take away people's freedoms, but you're not complaining about that. Only around 100 years ago slavery was legal, just because a "law" was written down and low iq cucks voted on it doesn't mean it's automatically good.

Just because rule of law can fail doesn't mean rule of law is wrong. But rule of law CAN be wrong for the reasons you've named. Like slavery being a violation of human rights. Slavery is wrong because it violates human rights, not because it can fail and the slaves can revolt. We don't have slavery today because it's wrong. Not just because the slaves don't like it and we'd rather they not upset the stability of society so okay, give them whatever they want.

 

[incel4life]

And as far as the self, it's not fair to say to the individual that they can't do what they want with it. It's about being able to do what you want with what's yours. And the self is yours. As long as you don't take what's someone else's, you can do what you want with yourself. By being with the women I wanna be with, I don't take what's yours. It's never been yours.

You are thinking in a bubble. Society defines ownership. Why do you think life is better in a society where Chad is allowed to endlessly fuck multiple women vs a monogamous society where there is one woman for every man?

 

[Robtical]

But you can do that. There are avenues you can take to protest the tax code and see it reformed.

That's what I'm trying to do, but in the meantime it is slavery until I'm able to decide where my tax money goes

But I couldn't, because no woman has any obligation to me, and I have no claim to any woman.

If you have no obligation to women, then you shouldn't be forced to give them 30% of your hard earned money, neither should they have the right to take from any other incels.

If you hold someone to an obligation, or give someone a right, and someone in this equation can say "That violates my right to such and such" then you can't put that obligation or right into practice. Unless that obligation/right doesn't actually violate anyone's right to such and such.

Offering femoids jobs to become government prostitutes for sub6 men doesn't violate their ights because it is their choice to do the job for the amount of compensation they're being paid.

Just because rule of law can fail doesn't mean rule of law is wrong. But rule of law CAN be wrong for the reasons you've named.

That's a contradiction, "rule of law" doesn't always mean right or wrong.

It's about being able to do what you want with what's yours. And the self is yours. As long as you don't take what's someone else's, you can do what you want with yourself.

Your time, effort, and money is also yours, and you should have the full agency to do what you want with it.

By being with the women I wanna be with, I don't take what's yours. It's never been yours.

That's why society has to be blackpilled and go back to slut shaming. If the laws can't force them to be monogamous, then their peers can. Being a slut should be looked at as worse than an infant rapist. Then bitches will refrain from riding the cock carousel, or they will be reated like used sluts by all the uncucked men.

 

[FrothySolutions]

That's what I'm trying to do, but in the meantime it is slavery until I'm able to decide where my tax money goes


If you have no obligation to women, then you shouldn't be forced to give them 30% of your hard earned money, neither should they have the right to take from any other incels.


Offering femoids jobs to become government prostitutes for sub6 men doesn't violate their ights because it is their choice to do the job for the amount of compensation they're being paid.


That's a contradiction, "rule of law" doesn't always mean right or wrong.


Your time, effort, and money is also yours, and you should have the full agency to do what you want with it.


That's why society has to be blackpilled and go back to slut shaming. If the laws can't force them to be monogamous, then their peers can. Being a slut should be looked at as worse than an infant rapist. Then bitches will refrain from riding the cock carousel, or they will be reated like used sluts by all the uncucked men.

I never said gov'mint hoes was a violation of said hoes' choice to be a ho. That's a different debate. This thread is talking about placing the onus on Chad and Stacy for fucking who they wanna fuck, instead of us.

You are thinking in a bubble. Society defines ownership. Why do you think life is better in a society where Chad is allowed to endlessly fuck multiple women vs a monogamous society where there is one woman for every man?

Society doesn't define ownership for everything. It can say I owe taxes because I make use of public facilities, it can say the public ways are a public space, and so everyone's security must be considered so my rights end where the public's security begins, but as far was who and how many people I fuck (if I could fuck anybody), that's between me and them. Society can't define that, or even enforce it.

 

[Robtical]

This thread is talking about placing the onus on Chad and Stacy for fucking who they wanna fuck, instead of us.

Not just stacy, even our looksmatches are chasing chads. Which is why men must be blackpilled and shame those whores, and make it clear to them no successful man will ever marry a used up chad dick rider.

 

[incel4life]

but as far was who and how many people I fuck (if I could fuck anybody), that's between me and them. Society can't define that, or even enforce it.

This is only the case in modern western society. In Muslim societies, it's between you and Allah, and Allah says to give fornicators 100 lashes. In modern western society, if some Chad brags about fucking a foid, he faces no consequences. In Muslim societies he will be given 100 lashes. Pre-1900 Christian societies also punished fornication.

 

[FrothySolutions]

This is only the case in modern western society. In Muslim societies, it's between you and Allah, and Allah says to give fornicators 100 lashes. In modern western society, if some Chad brags about fucking a foid, he faces no consequences. In Muslim societies he will be given 100 lashes. Pre-1900 Christian societies also punished fornication.

You can't enforce Sharia Law perfectly, not without a camera on every forehead. What keeps people following Sharia Law is because they believe in it.