Serious Hey incels, we need to talk about consent, so listen to this TED talk

[SlayerSlayer]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsv58469oZc

DO YOU UNDERSTAND CONSENT NOW??

The Moat of Consent: Understanding Boundaries and Autonomy

The moat is wide, dark water still,
A silent witness to force and will.
You see a bridge; I see a gate,
A boundary drawn—not up for debate.

Wings clipped by careless hands,
Words that slip like shifting sands.
You ask my name, then twist it slight,
Make a jest of self, erase my right.

A touch unbidden, a stare too long,
A verdict passed that feels all wrong.
My body not yours to claim or chart,
Not a riddle, not a work of art.

The drawbridge only lowers slow,
When space is safe, when trust can grow.
No grasp, no plea, no price to weigh—
My flight is mine, I choose the way.

For consent is wind, not chain nor wall,
Not won by conquest, nor owed at all.
It is the sky, the right to roam,
To say this is my body, this is my home.​

 

[Animecel2D]

not one second

 

[PersonalityChad]

No TED Talk for my face

 

[SlayerSlayer]

not one second

I INSIST YOU WATCH EVERY SECOND

 

[KillNiggers]

17 minutes. Naahh

 

[NIGGER BOJANGLES]

Not a picosecond

 

[SlayerSlayer]

17 minutes. Naahh

EVERY SECOND WILL MAKE YOU FEEL HER PAIN

 

[yeetbender.koala]

not one second

 

[Fire]

Babbles on for 20 minutes because she was pumped and dumped

 

[prajeet88]

^ Seen his Armenian wife?

 

[SlayerSlayer]

View attachment 1397405

^ Seen his Armenian wife?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND CONSENT?

 

[Angry_runt]

sounds like a sexhaver problem, nothing to do with me.

 

[SuperKanga.Belgrade]

 

[SlayerSlayer]

sounds like a sexhaver problem, nothing to do with me.

I dont consent to your opinion

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

How to get consent in three easy steps:
1. Be chad.
2. Be chad.
3. Be chad.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

"Sometimes yes actually means no"

 

[SlayerSlayer]

"Sometimes yes actually means no"

My new goal this year is to spend more time learning about consent and feminism than I spend time gooning and see if I get even crazier.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

My new goal this year is to spend more time learning about consent and feminism than I spend time gooning and see if I get even crazier.

You will lose brain cells reading that shit.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

You will lose brain cells reading that shit.

I already feel the sense that every women gets raped every second of her life

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

"Sometimes yes actually means no"

Chads: No means yes

Feminists: Yes means no

tldr: foids are liars

 

[High Tier Aryan]

dnw

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Chads: No means yes

Feminists: Yes means no

tldr: foids are liars

consent has mathematical depth

it's not enough that people have a basic addition and subtraction understanding of consent, but they need to understand consent as a mathematical proof:

For an interaction I between two individuals A and B, true consent C exists if and only if it satisfies the conditions of safety, autonomy, and mutual affirmation.

Definitions:​

1. Consent (C): A state where an individual willingly agrees to an interaction without coercion, pressure, or impairment.
2. Safety (S): A condition where the individual feels physically, emotionally, socially, and legally secure.
3. Autonomy (A): The ability to make decisions free from manipulation, obligation, or external control.
4. Mutual Affirmation (M): A reciprocal, enthusiastic, and clearly communicated agreement.

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Proof:​

To establish that true consent C exists, we must prove that the necessary conditions S, A, and M are all satisfied.

1. Assume that consent C is valid.
2. By the axioms, consent implies the presence of S, A, and M.C⇒(S∧A∧M)
3. Conversely, if S, A, and M hold, then consent is present.(S∧A∧M)⇒C
4. Therefore, consent exists if and only if all three conditions are satisfied:C  ⟺  (S∧A∧M)

Since consent is an ongoing function of time, it must be continuously evaluated. If at any point, one of the conditions S, A, or M ceases to hold, then consent is revoked:

¬S∨¬A∨¬M⇒¬C
Thus, any violation of safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation invalidates consent.

Conclusion:​

Consent is a logical construct that relies on multiple interdependent conditions. It is not a singular event but an ongoing state requiring continuous affirmation. The failure of any one component—safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation—renders consent null.

Just as a mathematical proof must be both necessary and sufficient, so too must consent meet all its conditions without compromise.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laMtr-rUEmY

 

[Izayacel]

No consent " for your height or face

 

[SlayerSlayer]

No consent " for your height or face

that's right, because HER BODY, HER CHOICE.

SHE DOES NOT CONSENT TO YOUR HEIGHT

SHE DOES NOT CONSENT TO YOUR FACE

According to the 4 axioms of the mathematical proof model of consent, your ugly face and short stature violates her standards of safety and necessity of of mutual affirmation

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

 

[Hoppipolla]

I mean, no means no is reasonable.

But there's no need to complicate it beyond that.

Feminists have turned this into a science and it seems a very punitive one for men at that.

 

[SubhumanGamer]

dni

 

[SlayerSlayer]

I mean, no means no is reasonable.

But there's no need to complicate it beyond that.

Feminists have turned this into a science and it seems a very punitive one for men at that.

no doesn't mean no
and yes doesn't mean yes either

its all a vibe sort of thing for neurotypicals

so in a way they try to explain consent as oppressively to autists as possible as a conspiracy to exclude us from participating in the sexual marketplace

 

[PersonalityChad]

that's right, because HER BODY, HER CHOICE.

SHE DOES NOT CONSENT TO YOUR HEIGHT

SHE DOES NOT CONSENT TO YOUR FACE

According to the 4 axioms of the mathematical proof model of consent, your ugly face and short stature violates her standards of safety and necessity of of mutual affirmation

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Bro is feministmaxxing

 

[cripplecel]

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Bro is feministmaxxing

IM SAILING INTO NEW EXTREMES OF THE BLACKPILL YOU JUST ARENT ON MY LEVEL YET

 

[Adolf Kitler]

not one second

 

[Hoppipolla]

no doesn't mean no
and yes doesn't mean yes either

its all a vibe sort of thing for neurotypicals

so in a way they try to explain consent as oppressively to autists as possible as a conspiracy to exclude us from participating in the sexual marketplace

I agree that "implicit language" matters too. idk what the right term is. XD

Like if the woman is totally keen and stuff then... I mean it seems a bit dumb to ask. Definitely goofy and highly likely to work against you at least in that moment.

Woke culture is not a healthy culture. IMO it's only subversion, not really morality.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

hope she gets graped by a pack of jeets

 

[kay']

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

consent has mathematical depth

it's not enough that people have a basic addition and subtraction understanding of consent, but they need to understand consent as a mathematical proof:

For an interaction I between two individuals A and B, true consent C exists if and only if it satisfies the conditions of safety, autonomy, and mutual affirmation.

Definitions:​

1. Consent (C): A state where an individual willingly agrees to an interaction without coercion, pressure, or impairment.
2. Safety (S): A condition where the individual feels physically, emotionally, socially, and legally secure.
3. Autonomy (A): The ability to make decisions free from manipulation, obligation, or external control.
4. Mutual Affirmation (M): A reciprocal, enthusiastic, and clearly communicated agreement.

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Proof:​

To establish that true consent C exists, we must prove that the necessary conditions S, A, and M are all satisfied.

1. Assume that consent C is valid.
2. By the axioms, consent implies the presence of S, A, and M.C⇒(S∧A∧M)
3. Conversely, if S, A, and M hold, then consent is present.(S∧A∧M)⇒C
4. Therefore, consent exists if and only if all three conditions are satisfied:C  ⟺  (S∧A∧M)

Since consent is an ongoing function of time, it must be continuously evaluated. If at any point, one of the conditions S, A, or M ceases to hold, then consent is revoked:

¬S∨¬A∨¬M⇒¬C
Thus, any violation of safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation invalidates consent.

Conclusion:​

Consent is a logical construct that relies on multiple interdependent conditions. It is not a singular event but an ongoing state requiring continuous affirmation. The failure of any one component—safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation—renders consent null.

Just as a mathematical proof must be both necessary and sufficient, so too must consent meet all its conditions without compromise.

that's crazy

 

[coping_manlet]

 

[Wumbus]

not a single planck's time

 

[PolskiKartofel]

No consent while 8+/10
Verbal consent for 4-8 after fees
Euthanasia for below this scale men

Foids ideal world

 

[CuntHater]

 

[Nordicel94]

Yeah incels aren't really the target audience for this obviously

 

[based_meme]

I INSIST YOU WATCH EVERY SECOND

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo

 

[BPJ]

hyperfocusing on consent today r we

 

[based_meme]

I already feel the sense that every women gets raped every second of her life

Ugly men exist. Therefore, women are raped every second of their life.

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Ugly men exist. Therefore, women are raped every second of their life.

we exist and they didn't consent to looking at us, therefore for them to see an ugly man walking down the street minding his own business is rape.

We violate the safety axiom of consent:

Necessity of Safety:
S⇒CS
If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Definitions:​

1. Consent (C): A state where an individual willingly agrees to an interaction without coercion, pressure, or impairment.
2. Safety (S): A condition where the individual feels physically, emotionally, socially, and legally secure.
3. Autonomy (A): The ability to make decisions free from manipulation, obligation, or external control.
4. Mutual Affirmation (M): A reciprocal, enthusiastic, and clearly communicated agreement.

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Proof:​

To establish that true consent C exists, we must prove that the necessary conditions S, A, and M are all satisfied.

1. Assume that consent C is valid.
2. By the axioms, consent implies the presence of S, A, and M.C⇒(S∧A∧M)
3. Conversely, if S, A, and M hold, then consent is present.(S∧A∧M)⇒C
4. Therefore, consent exists if and only if all three conditions are satisfied:C  ⟺  (S∧A∧M)

Since consent is an ongoing function of time, it must be continuously evaluated. If at any point, one of the conditions S, A, or M ceases to hold, then consent is revoked:

¬S∨¬A∨¬M⇒¬C
Thus, any violation of safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation invalidates consent.

 

[AssyrianCel]

Consent equations? God please stop being soooo evil and just remove rape laws already.

 

[based_meme]

we exist and they didn't consent to looking at us, therefore for them to see an ugly man walking down the street minding his own business is rape.

We violate the safety axiom of consent:

Necessity of Safety:
S⇒CS
If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.

High IQ.

Our existence is literally unsafe for them.

 

[based_meme]

consent has mathematical depth

it's not enough that people have a basic addition and subtraction understanding of consent, but they need to understand consent as a mathematical proof:

For an interaction I between two individuals A and B, true consent C exists if and only if it satisfies the conditions of safety, autonomy, and mutual affirmation.

Definitions:​

1. Consent (C): A state where an individual willingly agrees to an interaction without coercion, pressure, or impairment.
2. Safety (S): A condition where the individual feels physically, emotionally, socially, and legally secure.
3. Autonomy (A): The ability to make decisions free from manipulation, obligation, or external control.
4. Mutual Affirmation (M): A reciprocal, enthusiastic, and clearly communicated agreement.

Axioms:​

1. Necessity of Safety:
   S⇒CS
   If safety is not present, then consent cannot exist.
2. Necessity of Autonomy:
   A⇒CA
   If autonomy is compromised, then consent is invalid.
3. Necessity of Mutual Affirmation:
   M⇒CM
   If both parties do not clearly express their agreement, consent does not hold.
4. The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
   C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
   Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.

Proof:​

To establish that true consent C exists, we must prove that the necessary conditions S, A, and M are all satisfied.

1. Assume that consent C is valid.
2. By the axioms, consent implies the presence of S, A, and M.C⇒(S∧A∧M)
3. Conversely, if S, A, and M hold, then consent is present.(S∧A∧M)⇒C
4. Therefore, consent exists if and only if all three conditions are satisfied:C  ⟺  (S∧A∧M)

Since consent is an ongoing function of time, it must be continuously evaluated. If at any point, one of the conditions S, A, or M ceases to hold, then consent is revoked:

¬S∨¬A∨¬M⇒¬C
Thus, any violation of safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation invalidates consent.

Conclusion:​

Consent is a logical construct that relies on multiple interdependent conditions. It is not a singular event but an ongoing state requiring continuous affirmation. The failure of any one component—safety, autonomy, or mutual affirmation—renders consent null.

Just as a mathematical proof must be both necessary and sufficient, so too must consent meet all its conditions without compromise.

@Ahnfeltia GTFIH.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

@Ahnfeltia GTFIH.

made me wanna seizure all over the floor