Hypothesis: Foids don't love chads, they just lust after them.

[Naturex1]

Actually they resent them, because they dump them for other foids.

 

[epillepsy]

Yes, foids are incapable of love... not of chads, not of children, of anything.
I've never heard of a foid risking physical harm or her life to save a chad.
She will always value her own priorities over a man's.

 

[Naturex1]

Yes, foids are incapable of love... not of chads, not of children, of anything.
I've never heard of a foid risking physical harm or her life to save a chad.
She will always value her own priorities over a man's.

So love is what you're willing to sacrifice your life for?

 

[Fancy Alcoholic]

High IQ theory. That could also be linked to their natural tendency to masochism.

 

[epillepsy]

So love is actually what you're willing to sacrifice your life for?

I'm not going to define love so exactly, but it is a "higher" emotion, correct?
Something that requires cognition?
Dogs can feel excitement and boredom but not guilt and shame, for example.
Go watch a video of a woman speaking or talk to a woman in real life and tell me that thing is capable of true feelings of any kind.

 

[Naturex1]

I'm not going to define love so exactly, but it is a "higher" emotion, correct?
Something that requires cognition?
Dogs can feel excitement and boredom but not guilt and shame, for example.
Go watch a video of a woman speaking or talk to a woman in real life and tell me that thing is capable of true feelings of any kind.

I'd argue that women are capable of love. But because our society is so lost, you don't see much of it.
That's why they treat us like shit. Because they were treated like shit by chads. They just pass it on.

 

[Deleted member 29001]

Someone will write ''cope'' mark my words.

 

[DarwinsDisgrace]

women are mercenary by nature, I think they can become infatuated with Chad but its still down to appearance.

 

[radishman]

One of the bitterest pills to swallow is that foids are incapable of love, going in the face of everything we have been led to believe at that point.

 

[Strong One]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In a romantic relationship where both enjoy a healthy sex life, it is called lust. Love is real but it isn't romantic nor sexual, it's platonic.

 

[based_meme]

So love is what you're willing to sacrifice your life for?

I'm not going to define love so exactly, but it is a "higher" emotion, correct?
Something that requires cognition?

These are interesting questions. The willingness to sacrifice is certainly integral to the concept of love. It certainly is a higher consciousness emotion and very distant from the instinctual brain, however there are instinctual behaviors that are analogous to the concept of "love". Protecting your children and sacrificing life for them, for example, is driven by instinct (the drive to protect the successful product of your DNA's propagation), but there can be similar kinds of sacrifices that can be explained by the high emotion of love.

Willing to sacrifice yourself for your beliefs, for example, is rooted in what we call love. To go so far as to sacrifice your very life to some abstract notion and ideal must require a kind of devotion that can only be understood as "love". I mean, I suppose you could slap new labels to it, but it fundamentally converges to the notion of love (as a higher emotion). In that respect the willingness to sacrifice is a necessary and sufficient condition for love, though the act of sacrifice itself is not necessary to "prove" your love.

Dogs can feel excitement and boredom but not guilt and shame, for example.
Go watch a video of a woman speaking or talk to a woman in real life and tell me that thing is capable of true feelings of any kind.

Animals can feel things that closely resemble boredom and shame. Your dog sometimes wants to go out and play around, not because it needs to take a shit, but because it likes interacting with others (people, dogs etc.). And your dog is capable of realizing when it has done something it shouldn't do, which is basically shame. It doesn't speak, but you can infer from its body language that the puke it just made in the living room is something it's not happy about.

Briffault's laws inform us that the only real feelings of love a woman has are for her offspring, and never for any man that gives her those offspring. Is this cold, Machiavellian pragmatism purely instinct and a sign of no higher order thought and emotion? I suppose. But then you realize that there's cunning involved in manipulating men, so there must be some minimal level of thought and agency. A woman using a man for his money to feed her bastard kids might be something she doesn't see as fundamentally wrong (manipulation), but she will feel bad if other women accuse her of taking advantage of people and this has a material effect on her.

 

[epillepsy]

Animals can feel things that closely resemble boredom and shame. Your dog sometimes wants to go out and play around, not because it needs to take a shit, but because it likes interacting with others (people, dogs etc.). And your dog is capable of realizing when it has done something it shouldn't do, which is basically shame. It doesn't speak, but you can infer from its body language that the puke it just made in the living room is something it's not happy about.

I never claimed animals couldn't feel boredom.

But nothing an animal feels can approximate shame, which is defined as
a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.

Your dog may make a sad, guilty face when you scold it, but it's certainly not doing so out of any consciousness of wrongdoing. It's a placating gesture made so you stop shouting at it. There are no pangs of conscience there.

It may stop doing things because it doesn't want you to hit it when it repeats the behavior. It has no consciousness that the behavior it's done is wrong.

The same with foids. It's said that foids are emotional but not sentimental. I'd say that eliminates any emotions that a dog cannot feel from a foid's emotional range.

 

[based_meme]

I never claimed animals couldn't feel boredom.

But nothing an animal feels can approximate shame, which is defined as
a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior.

Your dog may make a sad, guilty face when you scold it, but it's certainly not doing so out of any consciousness of wrongdoing. It's a placating gesture made so you stop shouting at it. There are no pangs of conscience there.

It may stop doing things because it doesn't want you to hit it when it repeats the behavior. It has no consciousness that the behavior it's done is wrong.

The same with foids. It's said that foids are emotional but not sentimental. I'd say that eliminates any emotions that a dog cannot feel from a foid's emotional range.

Well, I did say that animals elicit emotions that resemble shame. Whether or not that actually is shame because they actually feel the "wrongness" of the act is something we can only infer (this is not including things like hitting or shouting at the animal). Perhaps their consciousness doesn't allow for those emotions and we're simply anthropomorphizing the animals. Or perhaps it does. Either way, there's no tangible "consciousness level" test we can utilize to determine whether a particular animal is capable of a certain range of emotions and what the "consciousness level" has to be for certain emotions to be able to take place in the brain.

If such a test CAN be accurately and reliably devised....

 

[epillepsy]

Well, I did say that animals elicit emotions that resemble shame. Whether or not that actually is shame because they actually feel the "wrongness" of the act is something we can only infer. Perhaps their consciousness doesn't allow for those emotions and we can simply anthropomorphizing the animals. Or perhaps it does. Either way, there's no tangible "consciousness level" test we can utilize to determine whether a particular animal is capable of a certain range of emotions and what the "consciousness level" has to be for certain emotions to be able to take place in the brain.

If such a test CAN be accurately and reliably devised....

In the same way, a foid can do actions that resemble emotions. We anthropomorphize not only animals, but foids as well. We sympathize with foids as if they are human, which they are in the barest sense, but not in the noble sense spoken of by philosophers and poets.

When a foid smiles, you, as a male, associate that action with a feeling inside you that would have caused that smile. In fact, for the foid, it's a mere pulling of muscles at the edges of her mouth to distort her face into a shape that elicits that sympathy in you, that allows her to gain certain things. Yes, there may be some brain impulses that correspond to that smile, but given the extreme differences between the male and female brain, can you be sure that the emotion behind it is anything resembling what you would be feeling?

Also, when a foid cries, does that mean she's sad? Of course not, a foid summons tears at will. She cries at soap operas and when seeing cute videos of dogs. Don't you distrust a foid's tears when you see it in, for instance, an interview? Well, you distrust the base emotion behind that action of crying. You distrust the capacity of a woman to even feel those emotions. And rightly so.

When we talk about love, we would expect certain signifiers other than speech and easy behaviors to come from it. If a foid NEVER sacrifices her life to save a man's life, surely that speaks against the type of love that a man thinks of. It's been shown again and again that foids treat males like trophies and status objects. What do you feel towards your trophies? Love? No, it's just something you flaunt about because it makes you seem like you're more than others. In the absence of these signifiers, we don't need accurate tests to know if a foid feels certain emotions; we know it not to be so.

 

[based_meme]

In the same way, a foid can do actions that resemble emotions. We anthropomorphize not only animals, but foids as well. We sympathize with foids as if they are human, which they are in the barest sense, but not in the noble sense spoken of by philosophers and poets.

When a foid smiles, you, as a male, associate that action with a feeling inside you that would have caused that smile. In fact, for the foid, it's a mere pulling of muscles at the edges of her mouth to distort her face into a shape that elicits that sympathy in you, that allows her to gain certain things. Yes, there may be some brain impulses that correspond to that smile, but given the extreme differences between the male and female brain, can you be sure that the emotion behind it is anything resembling what you would be feeling?

This is an open question and part of the hard problem of consciousness. It's why positions like solipsism have some ground to stand on. What you're asking is a difficult question to answer. How I can be sure that anything anybody (man, woman, or animal), other than myself, feels is real? Again, all we have are inferences, and maybe brain scans we can use to map to emotions to approximate what the emotion looks like "on paper".

When a person smiles, but feels nothing inside, we can safely and reliably call that psychopathy. But in the current faggot and SWJ-ridden cultural climate we're not likely to see any kind of experimentation on this sort of thing to give us some concrete reference points to work with. Nobody would greenlight the proposal for any kind of experiment remotely resembling this.

Also, when a foid cries, does that mean she's sad? Of course not, a foid summons tears at will. She cries at soap operas and when seeing cute videos of dogs. Don't you distrust a foid's tears when you see it in, for instance, an interview? Well, you distrust the base emotion behind that action of crying. You distrust the capacity of a woman to even feel those emotions. And rightly so.

We make the inference, based on certain assumptions, that she's sad. How accurate and valid that inference is would depend on what we know about the woman eliciting them, including her likely intents.

All of this is just a guessing game. It's a question of how accurately and intelligently you can guess.

When we talk about love, we would expect certain signifiers other than speech and easy behaviors to come from it. If a foid NEVER sacrifices her life to save a man's life, surely that speaks against the type of love that a man thinks of. It's been shown again and again that foids treat males like trophies and status objects. What do you feel towards your trophies? Love? No, it's just something you flaunt about because it makes you seem like you're more than others. In the absence of these signifiers, we don't need accurate tests to know if a foid feels certain emotions; we know it not to be so.

There is no argument here. We both understand that a woman can only feel love - the emotion which means you are willing to sacrifice limb and life for the recipient of the emotion - for her offspring, as per Briffault's law. This tells us that the female brain is capable of feeling love, but it's not towards anything other than her children.

However, this doesn't tell us that women are incapable of feeling other (high consciousness) emotions, let alone have them towards men. We can't logically and definitely make this conclusion (though we can be pretty damn sure about our guesses), which is why we would still need such a consciousness test to close the book on this.

Note: This assumes that a mother dying to protect her child is more than base instinct.

 

[mänline]

These are interesting questions. The willingness to sacrifice is certainly integral to the concept of love. It certainly is a higher consciousness emotion and very distant from the instinctual brain, however there are instinctual behaviors that are analogous to the concept of "love".

There is a description of the character of love in the bible. May it is helpful.

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

or a different translation:

" Love does not give up. Love is kind. Love is not jealous. Love does not put itself up as being important. Love has no pride. Love does not do the wrong thing. Love never thinks of itself. Love does not get angry. Love does not remember the suffering that comes from being hurt by someone. Love is not happy with sin. Love is happy with the truth. Love takes everything that comes without giving up. Love believes all things. Love hopes for all things. Love keeps on in all things."
1 cor 13:4

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

Lust is for Chad, love is for beta buck cucks