I wish I was a cat.
Blackpill [Hard To Swallow Edition] People (Especially Incels) Moralize Attraction To Physical Traits (Looks) & Vilify Attraction To External Traits (Wealth)
One could trick themselves into believing that looks are (actual) personality, so that’s enough to reconcile their cognitive dissonance. Also, the assumption is that your looks are something innate to you that nobody could take from you or duplicate. Whereas if she’s with you for your money, she could theoretically easily leave you for any other guy with money.
I find its too normal a thing for incels to just say random shit they came up with as though its a confirmed scientific fact, when its false at face value
You are literally speaking as if people can't change their minds, nothing you said here is even remotely through, where did you even learn this nonsense?
Dude stop with the bullshit excuses you aren't making sense, the fact that you are typing out sentences to explain that you have no free will defeats your own argument that you have no free will
No it isn't, learning a language is about memorization, making a decision is simply choosing to do something, and you can choose to change your mind
JFL don't blame your parents you are a retard all on your own, you are literally speaking as if you are the only person on the planet who had parents that taught them stealing was wrong, basically every thief that is alive now was taught that, your theory about "I can't change because muh neurons are set" is false at face value
You just like the excuse because you're pathetic but don't want to feel like its your fault
She can leave for any other good looking guy too, and last time I checked there is no "Money Tinder" but there is a "Tinder"
Attraction based on looks is biological, it's not inherently moral or immoral. However, the moral aspect comes into picture when a woman claims she loves YOU, but in reality she just loves your money.
D
The little hope i had i lost when i noticed nobody pointed out this massive non sequitur here, in what world is it not better to be "loved" for practically just existing over paying someone to "love" you? Not to mention the second you lose your dosh women will look for pinker pastures, whilst the guy who had to rely on his looks may get lucky and will still get to keep the woman, if just because of nostalgia alone. Both are shallow, but at least you aren't just a walking ATM to a woman if you have good looks.
Actually quite wrong. Several studies show women are more attracted to men with higher salaries compared to the control group.
Op is right is iam afraid. We put looks on a giant pedestal but the truth is it's looks, money and status.
By better I mean "morally better" not "convenience", if you read the preceding posts you should understand the context of whats being said
Man it sure does look like she's still in love (btw he killed himself shortly after to save her the trouble of leaving him)
Women always trade up in looks, so it sounds so funny for you to say this as though women don't leave based on looks upgrades too
Nope, unless he's Chad it doesn't work like that, so your argument amounts to - "Just be Chad"
You are a walking ATM, an ATM of sperm to help her have good looking children, but again you guys are obsessed with the ego stroking, so you don't think about it abstractly
Being attracted to a man's wealth is also biological. A woman being a gold digger is no different from being a chad chasing whore.
My point though isn't that they are all important, my point is that we treat one like its "evil and shallow" and the other like its "good and genuine" WHEN THEY BOTH THE SAME THING
A woman loving you for your face or your bank account are both just as shallow and "fake", if she doesn't like you for your personality THEN SHE DOESN'T LIKE YOU
By better I mean "morally better" not "convenience", if you read the preceding posts you should understand the context of whats being said
Man it sure does look like she's still in love (btw he killed himself shortly after to save her the trouble of leaving him)
Women always trade up in looks, so it sounds so funny for you to say this as though women don't leave based on looks upgrades too
in this case i think the woman left him first and then he killed himself (if i remember correctly).
Either way, Its literally over for him
If she loves your face and height she doesn't love YOU either, that's my point, if you are saying that all that makes you YOU is your physical makeup then congratulations, never use the personality detector meme again, because you've just conflated looks with personality, so women are correct in all their decisions, stop talking about them choosing abusive men, because they are right and there's no other criteria that exists for them to choose men based on
Are foids ever attracted to a man's personality? And why is attraction to a guys personality diff from getting attracted to his looks?
Why is one superficial and the other not?
No, it is not. There were no bank accounts and stock dividends in pre-historic times. If it doesn't tingle in the belly, it is not biological. Most rich men also tend to be older. Gold-digger will marry them just so they could inherit the money and blow it on sex parties with chads. Nice money-maxxing cope you've got there.
D
That's funny, i remember you saying morality is cope anyways, since there is no objective morality. Given this is you we are talking about, i have no actual reason to assume that, but even so i addressed your point:
Snow Dushman said:
Cherry picking is disingenuous you should know better, watch i can do it too:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Jnhvzh4Mw
Luckily, i can produce sperm thanks to my testicles without really doing anything, i cannot however make money appear out of thin air.
I thought this was obvious but ok
1. Your personality has more to do with compatibility rather than "I want to fuck him"
2. Your personality has more to do with how you will treat that person (no abusive relationships because "I want to fuck him")
3. Your personality is something that you choose (meritocratic) rather than something you were born with
4. Anyone can change their personality over time and adopt new values, you can't magically alter your face and height (again its meritocratic)
Etc
Its a fair criteria that's based on personal choice and effort, that's why its not superficial, and if it was the primary criteria, there really would be "someone out there for everyone"
Foids don't go for wealth perse but the ability to provide, which is a trait developed over a long period of time.
Iam not defending gold diggers, I'd personally not go with a non hooker foid who's wants money. But point stands that foids going for looks is no less shallow.
If a foid marries you for looks and let's say you get into a horrible accident and lose your looks, she's going to leave.
Personality also has a genetic component, not purely environmental. We are born with personality traits and don't always get to choose them. You're limited in your understanding of psychology if you think anyone can choose any personality and magically change.
Compatibility is a meme. I don't know what it means irl.
Last edited:
He obviously means resources, you are pretty much being disingenuous pretending as if you aren't aware of what he's saying, women are infact drawn to males based on their ability to provide, their looks is not the only factor, they only choose exclusively based on looks now, because they've adapted to the environment. They no longer need protection from a single male or a males resources as they can gain those resources themselves
Do you not understand what "arguing with context" is?, I don't believe morality exists, but within the context of the argument that it does, I am pointing out that attraction for money or looks is just as "immoral" and it makes no sense to only treat attraction based on money as the only "immoral" one
Its like you don't get context at all when it comes to anything, which is exactly why you said this:
Like come on dude
You really didn't, and if you had tried to understand the context first you would have made a better argument
That wasn't cherry picking, that was an example not "proof" of anything, nor did I assert it as proof, you were the one speaking as if women only trade up based on resources lol, when we know full well they mostly trade up based on looks
Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that women trading up based on looks isn't the norm?
Yes and luckily for people who are born into a millionaire household they don't have to work a day in their entire lives if they choose too, and you do produce millions of sperm, but not millions of Chad sperm
Obviously but nurture overrules nature, and nature only takes precedent in extreme cases (mental illness like bi polar disorder, etc)
Lets not pretend as personality has more to do with genetics rather than upbringing, I speak proper english and like the things I like because I wasn't raised in a hood among thugs, I'd be a completely different person otherwise
You quite literally can choose (again, not in extreme cases), you can force yourself to act a certain way until after years it becomes normal to you
You do realize that if what you were saying here is true there would literally be no such thing as "undercover agents" who over their career with their associated government agency has adopted various "personas" with varying personality types, backgrounds, skills, verbal ticks, languages, etc
They were all trained at these agencies to do this, you are basically trying to argue these people don't exist
Do you have friends?
If yes, do you think there's no reason you became friends with them rather than the other people who you just know as acquaintances?
Like I said to @Snow Dushman
You are also someone that doesn't understand what "arguing within context is", that shows you aren't open minded at all and you probably never debate anything
I don't believe in a specific God existing, but in an argument where my position is that "if the Christian God existed he is evil" I have to speak about the Christian God within the context of him existing
I don't believe personality matters to women or love is real, but in an argument where my position is "personality is the only real/not shallow criteria for choosing a mate" I have to speak about personality within the context of it actually meaning something
Debate 101, you don't have to always go against someones position, its often much easier to accept their position and show them a contradiction in their position even if that position is true, thereby showing how demonstrably false it is
This: "Even if God did exist he is evil based on your criteria of what constitutes being "morally good" ON TOP OF THE FACT that there is no proof that he exists"
IS BETTER THAN
This: "There is no proof that God exists"
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure the "real" vs. "fake" terminology is merely describing the nature of the attraction.
That in one she doesn't want to and would prefer not having sex and just obtaining the resources but she dishes out sex as a duty.
That in the other she wants to have sex.
Now, I'm not sure how true that it is, but from that perspective it's percectly rational and objective to call one form real and the other form fake even if you're fine with the results (I am) without making a moral position In one there would be sexual desire and the other no sexual desire.
Maybe it would more accurate just to say sexual desire rather than attraction.
I just see as people trying to draw a distinction between the two.
That in one she doesn't want to and would prefer not having sex and just obtaining the resources but she dishes out sex as a duty.
That in the other she wants to have sex.
Now, I'm not sure how true that it is, but from that perspective it's percectly rational and objective to call one form real and the other form fake even if you're fine with the results (I am) without making a moral position In one there would be sexual desire and the other no sexual desire.
Maybe it would more accurate just to say sexual desire rather than attraction.
I just see as people trying to draw a distinction between the two.
D
It's irrelevant what the context is, the point here is that you yourself don't believe in morality, thus making this entire thread obsolete. How you look is still a part of you, and not something money can replicate(at the very least not yet).
1. No i wasn't and 2. It doesn't matter what you presented it as or not as, you replied as to provide a counterpoint, i just followed your trail and made the same counterpoint.
See point 1.
This I agree with, takes the ambiguity out of the equation
why couldn't life just be simple. Why all the games, why the bullshit, and fake love?
Look, I get your point. I will concede to the fact that pursuit of money vs. pursuit of looks is equally shallow or "shallow" (depending on whether or not people ascribe moral crap to it). However, you are not actually suggesting that a rich incel who gets a dull, unreciprocated starfish sex once a decade is equally satisfied with the relationship as a poorer chad who gets to have amazing sex on daily basis, are you??? Because if you do, it's an entirely different subject of discussion.
This is some major cope
No matter how much money you have she won't love you the same way she loves Chad for his looks
No matter how much money you have she won't love you the same way she loves Chad for his looks
D
That too, one simple look at how a betabux and a chad are treated tells you everything you need to know really. Although OP claims this is about morality, despite he himself claiming to not believe in it .
1. That literally has nothing to do with anything I said
2. "Love" doesn't exist, its all physical attraction, so you are pretty much making a redundant almost circular argument by saying - "money won't make her be as physically attracted to you as physical attraction does" lol
Yes, just like in an argument about God (which I don't believe exists) I can assert that God is evil
I just explained to you what arguing within context is, are you retarded or hard of hearing?
Well that was literally my only point in this thread JFL, but people keep propping up strawmen to argue against
D
And i elaborated why your context doesn't matter since either way the post ends up becoming a non sequitur, also the argument about looks.
Once again, you have no foundation to even begin arguing when it comes to morality thus making any further "arguments" useless rubbish. Not to mention you haven't even elaborated on why looks=money in shallowness.
In case you haven't understood, i agree with some of the stuff you have wrote but the end conclusion simply doesn't hold water. I wouldn't be calling others names if i was you, considering you seem to be denser then a neutron star.
Even bigger cope
Love exists but we will never be loved
Don't overdose on the blackpill too much fedoracel
Ok, stepping away from the point you made which i agree with, here's a question for you. If you had to choose one, what would it be? Looks or wealth ?
I think you need to google non-sequitur or elaborate on how what I said is one, because you clearly don't know what you are talking about
Non-Sequitur: "A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement"
Example of a non-sequitur:
If someone asks "what it's like outside" and you reply "It's 2:00 PM"
Now you validate your argument, tell me how what I said fits this definition, and please no mental gymnastic bullshit
Fool I was using the rules of morality asserted by others, not my personal moral foundation
I have to call you names because you are an idiot who can't understand simple arguments
I'm done, you're just too stupid to be wasting all of this time on, you won't get it in a million years
Seen this question in so many other threads (polls)
I always go with wealth, because I'm not an egoist
I know a lot of you are so self obsessed you'd choose to be a homeless Chad that survives by picking up women for one night stands, but I'd much rather be a 5ft 2In balding Indian who is a millionaire because I don't care what people think of me nor do I focus on "what I think of myself"
I just want to do things that are enjoyable
Eat tasty foods, take in the sights, enjoy entertainment, have sex, and yes, sex is enjoyable whether the woman is attracted to you or not (as hard as it is for egoists to believe), in fact in some cases its enjoyable because you know she isn't attracted to you, there's a greater sense of "dominance" and power in that interaction that is pretty much an aphrodisiac all on its own (of course, it sadly can't be enjoyed by egoists who can't live without attention and people adoring them)
JFL I just realize that this is the mindset of the average incel on this sits, this video here encapsulates it all
View: https://youtu.be/L3vg2cTX3rQ?t=418
Egoists don't want to have sex because its enjoyable, they want to have sex because of what it implies, of how it affirms "their greatness" to be able to get a woman, its all about their perception of themselves
Last edited:
D
1.Right, so let's go over what you said:
If betabuxxing is shallow, then looks is on the same level of shallow too
Why? How did we come to this conclusion, also how is looks not a part of someone's character?
2. Alright fair enough but this didn't really answer anything, see point 1 again.
3.Concession taken. Keep shitting out whatever else your next posts will bring.
Yeah if ur black and educated ur an “Oreo”
Haha that's brutal bro
One of your best threads so far
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
