You have serious issues dude, I was just reading the thread from above to bottom. I'm not "ignoring" anything you're saying, I just hadn't even reached it yet JFL.
it's not anecdotal. You and me, and every single person on earth have seen someone who didn't try hard and got good grades, and a person who tried really hard and got C's. Anecdotal would be me saying 'I knew a guy who did that'. What I am saying is we ALL know someone who your rule is not true for
And why did I say it? Because you SAID in your own fucking words that anyone who tries hard, aces the class
That's wrong
The idea what I am describing doesn't exist is laughable
And what's more, I'm not arguing that the RULE is wrong because there are exceptions, which is what you are now accusing me of doing
I'm arguing exceptions exist. Because you claimed the people who get the best grades are the ones who try the hardest. I always have only been arguing that those exceptions exist. And to prove what you said wrong, that is all I need to do.
If your claim is that the people who get good grades have nothing to do with intelligence, and instead are just the ones who try hard, you're the one who has the burden, me pointing out 'hey there was definitely a time that wasn't true' means I'm right. I'm not denying trying helps. That would be retarded. I'm disputing YOUR claim that intelligence, plays no fucking role in it.
I see more similarities between lookism deniers and you than lookism deniers and me. You can't just try harder and do better than someone born with high intelligence.
stop the ad hominem
Last edited:
Okay, what is an 'intellectual?' You're just defining a term and claiming that none of them score low because 'they don't.' You can't just set a standard like that and then try to justify your previous claim that 'IQ matters' as if IQ was even proven to be relevant to what we generally consider intelligence to be. All of your sperg rambling can just be dismissed with the fact that it's all based on random things you've correlated together, despite not having backing for any of the claims, as you establish them as absolute truth.
And if one chooses to call out your blatantly fallacious reasoning, you resort to calling them blue-pilled because they aren't outright agreeing to the world you've built up into your head.
That's utterly ridiculous and you're causing drama on this forum for no reason other than the fact you want to sperg out.
I never claimed to be intelligent myself, I acknowledge that I'm quite unintelligent. I just disagree with your claim that foids are somehow proven to be more intelligent than men based on a metric that has you solve random puzzles and patterns in order to determine something as complex as intellect. The claim is utterly preposterous and you've just been rambling on this thread about it, so of course I'll say something.
my IQ was actually measured as part of my autism diagnosis and its 90, 80 functional lmao
Geckobus IQ Reveal - I got diagnosed with Aspergers Today and my IQ is 90 (80 functional)
Just came back from final diagnosis appointment. Got diagnosed with Aspergers and an IQ of 90, practical IQ of 80. I will attach pics to prove it. So much for the retards calling people like me defeatist. I am just realistic when I say I am clinically retarded. Let's start with this one. It...
incels.is
MORE INTELLIGENT THAN MEN WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT YOU COPER
I said people are retarded for believing they can NEVER be intelligent
you fucking coper
i said the exact opposite of what you just alleged I said
Or it could be because of the fact that your formatting of your text is genuinely horrid, along with your punctuation being out of place and random...
i cannot believe you just said my point was that I think women are more intelligent than men. I said just about the furthest thing from that possible. I said that it's cope to think NO women are intelligent, when there's clear evidence that is wrong. I stuck to that being the ONLY point I was making.
fucking hell
'accepted intellectual' as in anyone considered to be highly intelligent by the scientific community.
Also, i only said that because the guy I was arguing with made the claim that 'intellectuals' didn't always have high IQ. So it wasn't even my point to begin with. Then we found (and you have said that you read every word) that actually, all of them do have high IQ. Because IQ test predicts intelligence. Hegel, Kierkegaard, Feynman and one other were the ones quoted. All have high IQ.
i can go on
Von Neumann, often claimed to be the most intelligent person ever, 190 IQ
Bobby Fischer, 180+
Before you accuse anecdotes, go and find a person famed for their intelligence, who had a low IQ
Before you say irrelivent, remember YOU are the one who said 'what is an intellectual'. This is what we were talking about. So, no, I didn't just 'define a term' we were all referring to the same thing, and all using that word specifically to refer to that group of people. Idiot.
Also, stop refusing to engage my arguments
Did you or did you not know people who tried and didn't get great grades, and people who didn't try, and got good grades?
Why do high intelligence people score highly on IQ tests? With no exceptions. In thousands of cases.
There are, ironically, anecdotal cases you can point to where a persons intellect is not suited to the standardized test. But those, are anecdotes. The test is designed to predict intelligence in as many people as possible. The vast majority of the time, it predicts it accurately. Here you are calling 'uh no I know 1 in 100 times it doesn't. And believing it therefore, does not matter
THAT IS ANECDOTE
Last edited:
I actually do agree with this. Too many people abuse the fact that 'correlation doesn't equal causation' without actually establishing why they believe that variable x doesn't correlate to variable y.
However, I will indeed freely claim that high grades doesn't correlate to being intelligent considering that I can merely observe situations in the world that suggest that a different metric (such as hard work & time put in) are what actually affect things such as grades. For instance, feel free to justify to me why it is that private school kids that go to very expensive schools always tend to come out with the top grades and get accepted into prestigious universities?
Are all of these kids geniuses? Obviously not. What's happening is that the schools push the kid very hard and practically craft their college application. High quality tutoring is handed out and there is a constant pressure to surpass other kids and succeed.
So you concede that the test has even been changed numerous times due to it's inaccuracy? Wouldn't that alone raise concerns about the validity of the results and how relevant those results are to truly measuring intellect? Your whole case is built on nothing here...
I fail to see how the claim that 'IQ tests can not feasibly measure something as complex as intelligence' is absurd. That's because any line of questioning destroys the concept of 'IQ.'
For the sake of humoring you, let us say that IQ is, while not perfect, a pretty good measurement of intelligence. Let us say that there is someone who scores extremely high on an IQ test distributed by Mensa. How does that person contrast to another person who scored rather low, like 80 IQ? Is Person A now capable of blatantly surpassing Person B in every skill?
Will Person A always be better than Person B in skills such as handiwork, arithmetic, computer programming, or creative endeavors such as artwork?
the reply you said my text is hard to read, was a 4 line post. Each line had a distinct point. It was not hard to read at all
and it's still ad hominem. And it's wrong.
How the fuck is this hard to read? This is not only easy to read, it's formatted like C++ or python code, where each line you go down has a specific point it is making. If I didn't put the line breaks in, it would be harder to read. You mongoloid
No. The goal is to make the best test possible. We've spent over 80 years fine tuning it, specifically in replies to people like you who find reasons why it is a flawed test, and making those changes.
Think about coding. You make iterations. The first version is good, then you test it, find problems, and make iterations. You do it again and again until it's as good as it can be.
Again, this was not my claim. My claim is opposed to @SoycuckGodOfReddit 's claim that IQ tests have ZERO bearing on intelligence. That is my claim. Always has been. You read the entire argument. So you should know this.
'It's not annecdotal, here's this anecdotal statement about a fictional person that I'm making up for the sake of argument to claim that they've tried really hard and yet still failed to get good grades!'
Despite your claim, I've never seen anyone who worked hard and didn't get good grades.
I said that hard work is what correlates to having good grades. I don't quite comprehend how that statement is laughable.
I can't even comprehend what you're trying to say here. You are genuinely horrible at writing cohesive arguments.
The burden of proof falls on you here... you're claiming that having good grades correlates to being intelligent, and I'm claiming that I disagree with that statement because you've established no clear correlation between the two.
Calling you a sperg isn't ad hominem when you have sperg rants. I'm just calling it as it is, I'll gladly reply to the rest of your argument, but I don't know how me calling you a sperg hurts your feelings JFL.
This is a retarded opinion. The higher your intelligence, the better grades you get. If you falsely create a hypothetical where all the intelligemtn people are slackers, and all the nonintelligent people aren't, then you have a point. But there are people with good intelligence who care about their grades. Their are people with bad intelligence who don't. That group tends to come last
Both things matter
I am not alleging, and it's ridiculous to assume I am, that trying doesn't matter. I agree. It does. What I am alleging is that intelligence, also matters.
Do you know how studies work? You should. You remove other variables. If you remove trying from the equation, and take a group of people who all try equally, then the most intelligent get the best grades. You've created an example where the more intelligent don't try as hard. Well, many of them do.
My point was that there are people who try but get shit grades. That is true. It's because of their intelligence. Have you seen this happen? If so, even if it's just 2/30 or something, that's still evidence that intelligence matters in terms of getting good grades. Because the kids who are too dumb to get good grades, do try, and they fail. I personaly, on the other hand, never met a kid who had rock bottom intelligence, but got good grades. I'd put a bet on that neither have you. Average intelligence? Sure. I accept that. But that doesn't mean intelligence doesn't matter. You're just removing the original argument and changing it to 'this guy says trying doesn't matter and is using anecdotes to prove it'. No, I'm pointing out of a low IQ kid doesn't try, he flunks the class. If he does try, sometimes, he still flunks the class. And he doesn't match or exceed an intelligent person who tries as hard as he does.
Obviously intelligence matters. Warping the entire argument to not even be about intelligence but instead contained to 'if they try hard they get BETTER grades' doesn't change the fact if a SMART kid tries hard, they also, get good grades. And if a smart kid doesn't try hard, they get passable grades. If an idiot tries hard, they get good grades but don't exceed the smart kid. If they don't try, they get the lowest score in the class. You know I'm right.
Pucker down dude, geez...
Why are you so upset? I concede that I did indeed misinterpret your argument, but that still doesn't change the fundamental argument I'm presenting myself; nor is it even close to 'the exact opposite' of what you've said.
Does this prove intelligence doesn't matter? No. Not even remotely.
Also you're still ignoring the question. If you, me, and every user, has seen an intelligent kid slack off and still get good grades, that's no longer an anecdote. Suspiciously, you refuse to confirm or deny if you have seen this happen.
It's not like there are 10 smart kids not trying and I'm pulling the 1 in 10 who succeed while the other 10 are intelligent and get terrible grades. THAT would be anecdote. Claiming it ALWAYS happens, or most of the time, happens, is not anecdote.
How many smart kids in the average pre uni (where knowledge is required) class don't try? Like, 5? My prediction: all 5 get passing grades. There. No longer anecdote. That has been my point the whole time.
Last edited:
fuck off cunt you completely misrepresented my argument I have a right to find it laughable that you flipped my entire point to prove your original argument that all unintelligent idiots, more accurate
ugh, stop pinging me
look since you are such a fan of me pointing out that you're full of shit
I'll just point out that kasparov's IQ was measured at anywhere from 123-135, not 194
so, as my feynman example illustrated, what you assume about people's IQs might not be correct, despite you continually doubling down on your half-assed citation of made-up IQs
once again you're just throwing out fake shit
i thought you hated and knew nothing about IQ. Me googling shit with a 10 second check, and the top reply being innacurate proves nothing. especially as once again, 125-135 is also high as fuck. It's 95th-99th percentile, and at the upper end, genius tier. Reply to what I asserted you were incapable of replying to or fuck off
To save you having to find it: If every high IQ person ever tested scored high on an IQ test, then I can assume hegel had a high IQ. He was extremely, extremely intelligent. So either by some miracle, thousands of cases of the test predicting their intelligence are wrong, or he definitely also would have scored highly if given the test.
stop pulling tiny tidbits just to feel better about yourself
Last edited:
I don't, I just extrapolated from the fact that you have a pattern of bullshitting and defending fake IQ scores, and decided that some of your more outlandish figures were likely to be fabricated
to the contrary, you continued to obstinately defend your incorrect or purely fictitious attributions, which shows that your ruminations about the 'bluepill' are at base just projection and there is nothing to discuss
Last edited:
125-135 still anywhere between intelligent, and genius tier
This is a ha gotcha followed by ad hominem ad hominem. It doesn't engage what I say you can't reply to (which I repeat below). Engage it or fuck off cunt. It's just a way for you to ignore the main point and be right about 'something'
And, even if you are right, he still had high IQ didn't he?
reply to it cunt
if every high iq person ever tested was successfully predicted as having a high IQ and high intelligence, then the test bar some miracle, is accurate for geniuses. I am 100% fine to assume hegel would have scored highly
Last edited:
That still doesn't even define anything. It's literally a circular definition.
And I agree that intelligent people don't always have high IQ. You're just repeating back to your same claim that they do because of the 'test' that we've repeatedly called into question in the argument. That was the whole point. You're genuinely so autistic.
Those aren't anecdotes though... you claiming that a fictional person struggling despite putting in effort into their situation, is indeed anecdotal and is not valid evidence of your claim.
Also, hadn't even you said earlier that IQ tests in the past were faulty and have been changed numerous times due to their inaccuracy? By that standard alone, couldn't you just very easily dismiss any previous tests done on those acclaimed geniuses? JFL, you're so inconsistent.
Although, I could very gladly tell you about multiple people famed for their intelligence that didn't preform well in school, LOL!
You're gish-galloping. You just throw argument after argument with no regard to their quality. You've made like 6-7 other posts that I haven't even gotten to yet. How do you want me to feasibly respond to it all? JFL! And then when your opponent no longer wants to deal with your blatantly stupid arguments, you rush to get the last word in and claim victory as if you have proven anything.
Just because you want to LARP as intelligent with your picture of Bergson and your title of "evolutionary psychology enthusiast," doesn't mean that everyone has to now suddenly acknowledge you as anything but a retarded sperg.
No. I didn't. I said they had changed. It makes perfect sense for something to change to be more accurate. I gave the example of coding. You write a program, it works ok, then you make iterations. It gets better and better and better, and it never gets worse
i also already replied to that, and you ignored it.
Reply.
How is it true that a test that has been refined based on people like you, claiming there are flaws, and then changes being implemented to address those flaws, for 80 years, is still bad?
jfl so true, once you leave this thread prepare for like 50 pings
brutal
you're a high IQ poster btw, regardless of measured IQ
LMAO Why would you format your arguments like C++?
Why would you not just write cohesive paragraphs? You know... the established way to write things? JFL. I have never seen a more clear sign of autism then someone comparing their writing to code. That alone should dismiss everything you're saying.
i wrote you pages and you replied to tiny morsels of it. Watch me reply to everything you say here.
The point is the term 'intellectuals' was used in this argument to refer to societies revered intellectual minds, known by fame. They are all intelligent. You can claim the term means nothing, that doesn't remove the fact a) I wasn't the one who chose to argue about those people. You can even see soycuck has come back and is now confirming we referred to minds like Hegel, and b) all people of this bracket, score highly on IQ tests
You have said NOTHING that explains why this happens. Nothing. They ALL score highly. Explain it. Why does that happen? Revered intellectuals, score highly on the test. Why?
I was arguing that it's easy to read. And it is easy to read. You didn't challenge my arguments as to why it was. The message in question was painfully easy to understand. It was written in a form where every separate line served to increase the legibility of the message. If I had kept it as a single paragraph, it would have been 5 sentences one after the other. It was literally easier to read with the line breaks and that is why I put them in.
I'm just pointing out that is how a language DESIGNED to be readable, is also formatted. And, it's lesser to my reply that it was EASY TO READ and you know it was
way to suck off the user you agree with as high IQ
agree with me = high IQ
disagree with me = low IQ
real bluepilled take, once again
nah he's posted here for a while, he's a cool user
I don't know the name of the person in your class. So I can't say 'I'm talking about Darren Flett, the guy you went to school with in 5th grade'
I'm just saying I bet you saw people who tried hard and got shit grades, and people who didn't try and got good grades
IS THIS TRUE OR NOT
I've already received like 15 pings already from this autistic spud whilst being on it. I don't even want to imagine what it's going to be like after.
Thank you! Although I do have to admit that I am pretty stupid... still more intelligent than this Iaanda moron, though.
Every single time I challenge you to disprove my final point, you dodge it. Because you cannot.
reply to it cunt, or leave;
if every high iq person ever tested was successfully predicted as having a high IQ and high intelligence, then the test, bar some miracle, is accurate for geniuses. I am 100% fine to assume hegel would have scored highly
Seriously
you refuse to engage it. You've engaged now on NEW things and nitpicked tiny details, but still won't fight this point ^ because if you do, there's no way to win
Last edited:
No. All Girls I knew from school and such got success because they were girls, were enveloped In Riverdale and rode every dick imaginable.
One Afghan asylum seekers girl even got to a prestigious German school in my area. She could not even speak 1 sentence in German.
BTW that same school rejected me. Living da dream.
my opinion is that women have the capacity to possess intelligence. If you think that proves I myself have no intelligence, that's just remarkably thick
Okay, that's fine. Doesn't change the fact that you're objectively incorrect.
That's not what I meant. I meant that in every single reply so far, rather than answering the question 'did you see intelligent kids not try hard and still pass the class'
answer. the question. Did you see them or not?
You don't answer because if you did, it would fuel my argument.
you just accuse me it's an anecdote, and you're wrong.
It isn't. As I said. My prediction is if there are 5 intelligent kids who don't try in the class, all 5 pass the class. Maybe 4, and 1 fails. That's not anecdote. It's hypothetical, because I don't fucking know who is in your classes so how can I not just make it hypothetical? You can apply your own classes to it, and either i am right, or i am wrong. It's not anecdote. It's not even misleading. Coper.
But I can say it's true for every class I was ever a part of. The intelligent people who did not try, still passed. And I believe you know it's true of your experiences too.
Last edited:
Or it could just be that you've never made any valid points to begin with, and you're just throwing random arguments with no backing behind any of them. The only way to win arguments with homunculi such as yourself is to slowly stop responding as soon as one recognizes that they're speaking to someone that possesses the intelligence of a hippo.
How the fuck does it not make more sense that they can be intelligent, but not rational? It explains everything you see wrong with their logic. Rationality is an inability to act logically that is not tied to intelligence.
No, wrong. In the case of @SoycuckGodOfReddit I'm literally copy pasting text 8 times in a row and he can't disprove it. This text;
EVEN YOUR OWN OPINION ABOUT IQ DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DISCUSS 'intellectuals' (hegel)
Even if you don't, he still claimed that. He has to disprove it or he's wrong. Not even by my opinion. Objectively. As in, he either counters this ^ or he's flat out incorrect. You can read it and check.
also. He didn't slowly stop responding. He suddenly stopped and has since come crawling back thinking I'd forget. He refuses to engage a single line of text that he can't disprove.
That's all that has been happening. I've made the same point 8 times, challenged him to disprove it, he refuses to engage
spend 30 seconds reading it
stop defending your butt buddy
he's way more incorrect than you are, his opinion is straight up incapable of standing up to a single line, and he's not even tried, 8 times in a row
yet you side with him because he agrees with you
fucking biased
Last edited:
think back to when you accused me of ad hominem then read this back to yourself
you made this ^ statement about a single line of text that makes sense, and he refuses to even try to engage with even after repeated accusations he cannot possibly disprove it. He didn't even stick to running away. He came back, picked something else, and argued about that. But he can't engage the line
you could not be more wrong in any of it. It's literal PROOF that I've made a good argument, one he cannot even TRY to disprove. He repeatedly comes back to reply to other things. Hasn't even acknowledged the call outs from me that he can't disprove it.
So because I asked him eight fucking times to disprove the same thing, you say I've NEVER made a valid point
The one point I am making, he cannot disprove.
So the rest of this message is pure namecalling and contains zero value outside of that. Because it's not even true. because you're a coper.
I don't care if you think I'm intelligent
here i am, taking up a contrarian position that goes against 90% of the users on the forum
if i wanted people think i was intelligent, I'd have said 'fuck foids they're dumb' and you would have believed I was intelligent
You have literally. Time and time again. Said you think I'm UNintelligent because of my opinion on this topic. Meanwhile you think a guy who believes HEGEL would have scored LOW on an IQ test, is intelligent. LOL. This statement is the exact opposite of what is actually correct
This forum boils down to people increasing their perceived intelligence by repeating the opinion people want to hear
What I did is state something you did not want to hear. And it directly resulted in me being perceived as less intelligent
my alerts look the exact same. What does this prove? nothing. It's another weak argument you use to feel more correct. What does it even mean? I'm replying to your points. You're ignoring mine.
any one of the last 6 things I said is unarguable. You stopped because you can't disprove any of them.
Accuse me of not making any good points? The guy you're defending can't find a single fault in a point that I put to him repeatedly, in a single line, and still refuses to despite replying to other things, proving he still wants to try
Accuse me of wanting to prove intelligence? I voluntarily lost reputation about my intelligence, in order to argue that truth > bluepills
noreply to either
undeniable beyond a shadow of a doubt
coper.
Last edited:
intelligent foid is an oxymoron. an 160iq woman is almost as smart as a man with down syndrome
@SoycuckGodOfReddit you came out of your cope hole to reply to me misquoting an IQ, you had to read the whole thing to have noticed, but literally ignored and dodged 8 consecutive callouts that you had nothing to say about my point. LOL.
here it is again;
if every high iq person ever tested was successfully predicted as having a high IQ and high intelligence, then the test, bar some miracle, is accurate for geniuses. I am 100% fine to assume hegel would have scored highly
0 comment. this should be undeniable proof that you're wrong about it
There is NOTHING you can say to disprove this. You know it's true.
here it is again;
if every high iq person ever tested was successfully predicted as having a high IQ and high intelligence, then the test, bar some miracle, is accurate for geniuses. I am 100% fine to assume hegel would have scored highly
0 comment. this should be undeniable proof that you're wrong about it
There is NOTHING you can say to disprove this. You know it's true.
Last edited:
@The Scarlet Prince king of ad hominem
@SoycuckGodOfReddit bluepilled coper with an accurate username
@SoycuckGodOfReddit bluepilled coper with an accurate username
The message you quoted wasn't the message in question lmao. This was:
Or you know, stuff like this:
I'm sure you're just a striking genius, aren't you?
both of those are extremely easy to read
actually the second one has a mistype but who cares I typed pages and pages, and made a mistake
they went to school every day with 3-4 foids (as well as guys) and are coping it means nothing
if you don't understand that, that is your problem
of all the things to reply to, you go back to being a grammar nazi. I allege you can't disprove anything I said recently, and you don't even try, you just say my typing sucks, and use two examples in 3 hours of arguing to prove it. LOL
the first one is easy to understand and if you disagree it's not my fault you can't follow complex sentences
it wasn't even a big mistake. There's 2 missing words, and considering they come after a tangent, it's a common mistake to make. 'to make your argument more accurate' instead of 'more accurate'
i typed that in 10 seconds
you pulled it out of HOURS of coherent replies, and it wasn't even that bad
ARGUE BACK MAKE A SINGLE COUNTERARGUMENT INSTEAD OF BRUSHING THE FACT YOU WERE WRONG, ASIDE. It wasn't hard to follow. I made 1 mistake in 3 hours. Coper.
Last edited:
@The Scarlet Prince it makes me so fucking angry you never once answered whether you have actually seen unintelligent schoolkids who try hard and don't get good grades, or smart kids who don't try, and still pass. If i alleged, OCCASIONALLY they do then it's anecdote. But, my point is the usually do. You didn't disagree because you can't. It's a basic point. You know you have, and never answered the question. it proves your point wrong and you spent an hour alleging other shit about my arguments just so you didn't have to answer the hypothetical. Plus, it's hypothetical because I don't see who you went to school with. If I knew, I'd have said 'this kid this kid this kid that kid and that kid all prove you wrong, and they make up a majority of cases'. I can't. I have no option but to leave it to YOU to apply the names. What did you do? Dodge doing so.
i love that my original post was that this site is bluepilled and its bluepilled to think what they do about this post
bluepillers believe they're right even when they're being stupid, NEVER realize they are wrong, even if they got dunked on
they believe the comforting truth
What do I get? People who argue for the thing that benefits them, even though it's plainly false. People who don't admit they're wrong and can't see they're stupid
namecalling
soycuck fucked off as soon as he faced a line he couldn't explain away with rationalizations that make no sense when examined.
both of these users left the argument thinking they weren't wrong. Just like lookism deniers. Fucking infuriating
it stinks of the same logic that ends all conversations with lookism deniers on 'you're a stinky inkwell and I don't have to argue with you because you're dumb'
1 guy who argued with me couldn't disprove 1 line
the other ignored 6 occasions of being wrong, in a row, including one about claiming I made no good points to the first guy, who can't even defend himself, and then called me a grammar nazi instead of trying. It took him as much time to do so as it would have to engage. He also took an unbelievably hypocritical stance that he was allowed to lean on weak arguing tactics such as anecdote, parable and comparing intelligence to looks, but if I dared make up a hypothetical, I'm the worst arguer on the planet. A hypothetical he never even answered.
This is equal bluepill coping to the worst arguments I've seen lookism deniers make. The belief they are defending makes them feel good and if they're wrong, it ruins the illusion, it also wins them forum points. Sounds like what IT does.
Oh well. All of this strengthens my belief that the bluepill runs deep and users here don't face uncomfortable reality because they aren't blackpillers.
bluepillers, all over this forum
i love that my original post was that this site is bluepilled and its bluepilled to think what they do about this post
bluepillers believe they're right even when they're being stupid, NEVER realize they are wrong, even if they got dunked on
they believe the comforting truth
What do I get? People who argue for the thing that benefits them, even though it's plainly false. People who don't admit they're wrong and can't see they're stupid
namecalling
soycuck fucked off as soon as he faced a line he couldn't explain away with rationalizations that make no sense when examined.
both of these users left the argument thinking they weren't wrong. Just like lookism deniers. Fucking infuriating
it stinks of the same logic that ends all conversations with lookism deniers on 'you're a stinky inkwell and I don't have to argue with you because you're dumb'
1 guy who argued with me couldn't disprove 1 line
the other ignored 6 occasions of being wrong, in a row, including one about claiming I made no good points to the first guy, who can't even defend himself, and then called me a grammar nazi instead of trying. It took him as much time to do so as it would have to engage. He also took an unbelievably hypocritical stance that he was allowed to lean on weak arguing tactics such as anecdote, parable and comparing intelligence to looks, but if I dared make up a hypothetical, I'm the worst arguer on the planet. A hypothetical he never even answered.
This is equal bluepill coping to the worst arguments I've seen lookism deniers make. The belief they are defending makes them feel good and if they're wrong, it ruins the illusion, it also wins them forum points. Sounds like what IT does.
Oh well. All of this strengthens my belief that the bluepill runs deep and users here don't face uncomfortable reality because they aren't blackpillers.
bluepillers, all over this forum
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
