Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Venting I hate when normies say “respect your mom and dad bro”

You can't force other lifeforms to not reproduce or drive them to extinction. That's not ethical.

Just read this:



Of course, I would never subscribe to this thinking because that requires me forcing my will on other creatures, which I would never do (same thing as going ER, which is essentially you forcing your will [wanting to bring death] on other people, which is also why I would never go ER, even if I could or murder was legal or something).

So some people are against all life, but not you. Sounds like the antinatalists can't agree on what life is okay and what isn't. So it's not really an argument you can stand by. You can't say "The antinatalists feel this way" because the antinatalists are not all in agreement.
 
This again. Okay...



Those are your fucking words. That's what I responded to you about.

But what I neglected to pick up on is that you can't read. If you could, you'd know that the "life is objectively suffering" conversation was one I'm having with @lonelysince2006. Quote block wouldn't be beyond you, if you could read.



You want me to name everyone in rational society? There are literally dozens of us. But the larger issue that makes your views irrational is that you can't make an objective case for them. You haven't argued one. All you've argued is "I personally don't like my life." You've got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone until you can make a case for an objective standard all people must follow. Otherwise you can't turn to your parents and say "You are at fault for something." You have not presented "No man or woman shall have children unless X."



Same to you. I asked you what the financial standard was and you've offered nothing. You looking at the cool kids and wishing you were them is no basis for an argument against your birth.



So the antinatalists are arguing against ape life? How come the fish get to live? How come the frogs get to live?
Irrational based on whom you cant seem to cite your majority” and the standard should be if your poor to a severe degree you shouldn’t have children because you’re subjecting them to poverty how hard is this to fucking grasp
 
Irrational based on whom you cant seem to cite your majority” and the standard should be if your poor to a severe degree you shouldn’t have children because you’re subjecting them to poverty how hard is this to fucking grasp

As I said earlier, if you want me to name everyone in rational society, I don't know everyone's name in rational society. What would naming them do for you, anyway?

And what is "a severe degree?" You haven't given me anything concrete to grasp. I want you to tell me exactly how poor you have to be before you shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
 
So some people are against all life, but not you. Sounds like the antinatalists can't agree on what life is okay and what isn't. So it's not really an argument you can stand by. You can't say "The antinatalists feel this way" because the antinatalists are not all in agreement.
I never said I speak for ALL antinatalists, but in order to be antinatalist, you either have to oppose (A) humans reproducing or (B) all sentient life (humans AND animals) reproducing (this is all consistent with the Wikipedia article).

What did I say?
Antinatalists argue for an end to humans reproducing today.

Which is consistent with the above statement, so my point still stands.
 
As I said earlier, if you want me to name everyone in rational society, I don't know everyone's name in rational society. What would naming them do for you, anyway?

And what is "a severe degree?" You haven't given me anything concrete to grasp. I want you to tell me exactly how poor you have to be before you shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
Near the poverty line (5k above) Uses welfare
 
I never said I speak for ALL antinatalists, but in order to be antinatalist, you either have to oppose (A) humans reproducing or (B) all sentient life (humans AND animals) reproducing (this is all consistent with the Wikipedia article).

What did I say?


Which is consistent with the above statement, so my point still stands.

The question is, is it a rational belief? Your argument against it was "It's not irrational because it's antinatalism." But it's not necessarily antinatalism because by your own admission you don't really agree with them like that.

Near the poverty line (5k above) Uses welfare

The poverty line varies per household size. It's about whether or not you can live within your means. If you can't live within your means, then it's irresponsible to have kids. It's only irresponsible to have kids if you can't afford to take care of them.

Were your parents able to live within their means? Could they afford to raise you? I notice you never really did say you were poor in your opening post, so now I gotta wonder how "poor" you actually were.
 
Those are your fucking words. That's what I responded to you about.
Tell me precisely where, in my words, I said this:
So, what, only wealthy models who are famous should have children?
Where did I say it? You are really a bad showcase of the strawman tactic. There are different degrees of being wealthy. The same degrees apply to being ugly. Incel is more ugly than normie, and normie is not so pretty like Chad. You spoke only in superlatives. Wealthy models and famous. Is there nothing between this and being ugly and poor?
But what I neglected to pick up on is that you can't read. If you could, you'd know that the "life is objectively suffering" conversation was one I'm having with @
lonelysince2006
@lonelysince2006. Quote block wouldn't be beyond you, if you could read.
Your answer

This is literally your answer to MY quote. On whose quote did you write this answer?
You want me to name everyone in rational society? There are literally dozens of us. But the larger issue that makes your views irrational is that you can't make an objective case for them. You haven't argued one. All you've argued is "I personally don't like my life." You've got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone until you can make a case for an objective standard all people must follow. Otherwise you can't turn to your parents and say "You are at fault for something." You have not presented "No man or woman shall have children unless X."
This is hilarious. Then you will have no problem showing me the dozens of you. Just name a few on this forum, for example, because what I see is that the only one who is advocating this here is you. Who is a rational society? Who decides that, you?

"You've got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone until you can make a case for an objective standard all people must follow. Otherwise you can't turn to your parents and say "You are at fault for something."

Again, who decides this? You? I cannot hold an opinion unless all people have to follow this standard? What is this kind of hilarious argument? Hey guys! Normies, IT, women, and chads do not follow our black-pilled opinions. Since not all people are following our opinions, we have got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone, so I think we should pack our things and rot because our opinions are not valid. Case solved.
 
The question is, is it a rational belief? Your argument against it was "It's not irrational because it's antinatalism." But it's not necessarily antinatalism because by your own admission you don't really agree with them like that.



The poverty line varies per household size. It's about whether or not you can live within your means. If you can't live within your means, then it's irresponsible to have kids. It's only irresponsible to have kids if you can't afford to take care of them.

Were your parents able to live within their means? Could they afford to raise you? I notice you never really did say you were poor in your opening post, so now I gotta wonder how "poor" you actually were.
In some aspects yes and no, Also I also didn’t like they didn’t take into my quality of life
 
Last edited:
"Shit genes" is being born retarded, or nonviable. But if you're genuinely like "Fuck you Mom and Dad, didn't you know that I wasn't gonna have the right cranial structure" then maybe you are retarded.
✅
 
The question is, is it a rational belief?
What do you consider a rational belief? I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Antinatalism is a whole school of philosophy with entire works of literature dedicated to it and famous philosophers who were its proponents (Arthur Schopenhauer, Phillip Mainlander, David Hume, etc.). Ultimately, what constitutes "rational" or "irrational" beliefs is subjective.


From traditional epistemological perspectives, the obligation here is narrow, concerning only good reasons for acceptance that constitute sufficient justification or warrant.

So a belief only requires "good reasons for acceptance" supporting it for it be considered "rational." Acceptance itself is subjective.
But it's not necessarily antinatalism because by your own admission you don't really agree with them like that.
I'm a bit lost. What do you mean? I just said how it's antinatalism whether if you're only opposed to human reproduction or all reproduction by sentient beings. I am an antinatalist and I stand by its core points. What is not necessarily antinatalism? Could you clarify?
 
Where did I say it? You are really a bad showcase of the strawman tactic. There are different degrees of being wealthy. The same degrees apply to being ugly. Incel is more ugly than normie, and normie is not so pretty like Chad. You spoke only in superlatives. Wealthy models and famous. Is there nothing between this and being ugly and poor?

And I suppose there are tiers to "social status?" If you're talking social status, you're asking for your parents to be famous. That's where you said it.

View attachment 1061166
This is literally your answer to MY quote. On whose quote did you write this answer?

That was me pointing out that, whichever of the two positions you were taking, neither of them are reasonable. Turns out yours was the "Parents with low social status and looks and wealth shouldn't have children." Which is retarded.

This is hilarious. Then you will have no problem showing me the dozens of you. Just name a few on this forum, for example, because what I see is that the only one who is advocating this here is you. Who is a rational society? Who decides that, you?

I specifically said this forum is not where you should find rational opinions. It never has been, remember how I described it as "an echo chamber for nonfunctioning autists?"

But you newcomers have fucked things up especially. Things were not as stupid before you showed up.

"You've got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone until you can make a case for an objective standard all people must follow. Otherwise you can't turn to your parents and say "You are at fault for something."

Again, who decides this? You? I cannot hold an opinion unless all people have to follow this standard? What is this kind of hilarious argument? Hey guys! Normies, IT, women, and chads do not follow our black-pilled opinions. Since not all people are following our opinions, we have got jack fucking shit to hold against anyone, so I think we should pack our things and rot because our opinions are not valid. Case solved.

You can have all the opinions you want, but when you start blaming your parents, it stops being your opinion and you start holding them to that standard. To blame your parents is to say "This thing I believe is objectively true, my parents committed an objective wrong."

In some aspects yes and no, Also I also didn’t like they didn’t take into my quality of life

See, now we're getting to the truth of the matter. When you start saying things like "Well, in some aspects, but I didn't like the quality." That's when you start bitching about privileges you didn't actually need.

What do you consider a rational belief? I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Antinatalism is a whole school of philosophy with entire works of literature dedicated to it and famous philosophers who were its proponents (Arthur Schopenhauer, Phillip Mainlander, David Hume, etc.). Ultimately, what constitutes "rational" or "irrational" beliefs is subjective.




So a belief only requires "good reasons for acceptance" supporting it for it be considered "rational." Acceptance itself is subjective.

When I say "rational" I mean "It holds up against scrutiny." But when you say "Acceptance is subjective," you disregard that as the metric for whether or not a thing is rational. But if that's not what makes a rational belief, what is?

I'm a bit lost. What do you mean? I just said how it's antinatalism whether if you're only opposed to human reproduction or all reproduction by sentient beings. I am an antinatalist and I stand by its core points. What is not necessarily antinatalism? Could you clarify?

Antinatalism, as you cited it, is against all life. And you said "I wouldn't go that far." That means you aren't going as far as "true antinatalism." You're picking and choosing which tenets you wanna believe in.
 
And I suppose there are tiers to "social status?" If you're talking social status, you're asking for your parents to be famous. That's where you said it.



That was me pointing out that, whichever of the two positions you were taking, neither of them are reasonable. Turns out yours was the "Parents with low social status and looks and wealth shouldn't have children." Which is retarded.



I specifically said this forum is not where you should find rational opinions. It never has been, remember how I described it as "an echo chamber for nonfunctioning autists?"

But you newcomers have fucked things up especially. Things were not as stupid before you showed up.



You can have all the opinions you want, but when you start blaming your parents, it stops being your opinion and you start holding them to that standard. To blame your parents is to say "This thing I believe is objectively true, my parents committed an objective wrong."



See, now we're getting to the truth of the matter. When you start saying things like "Well, in some aspects, but I didn't like the quality." That's when you start bitching about privileges you didn't actually need.



When I say "rational" I mean "It holds up against scrutiny." But when you say "Acceptance is subjective," you disregard that as the metric for whether or not a thing is rational. But if that's not what makes a rational belief, what is?



Antinatalism, as you cited it, is against all life. And you said "I wouldn't go that far." That means you aren't going as far as "true antinatalism." You're picking and choosing which tenets you wanna believe in.
Why does it matter what I and others complain about does it personally affect you, you fucking retarded boomer (edit): Also who are you to decide what dictates as “bitching” who are you when it comes to being “rational” What are YOUR basis for these claims
 
Last edited:
Why does it matter what I and others complain about does it personally affect you, you fucking retarded boomer

Am I not allowed to critique you, or do you just want an echo chamber where you can rant and feel better?
 
Am I not allowed to critique you, or do you just want an echo chamber where you can rant and feel better?
Where are your basis for these claims of “being rational” actually cite sources
 
Where are your basis for these claims of “being rational” actually cite sources

What do you mean "cite sources?" Like a book that defines what "rational" means? Or do you mean cite examples of society at large believing that life is not an inherent evil?
 
Normies say this because they actually have nice and can’t think about anything from a different perspective. But when your parents gave you shit genes or can’t make a smart financial decision anyone with half a brain wouldn’t respect them.

And what’s the kicker is when normies say “ Muh your mother birthed you:soy:” which is retarded since I didn’t want or asked to be born.
Pretty much we never asked to be born tbh. Also hate it when they say this bs.
We never asked to be in this filthy world. Normies would never understand
 
What do you mean "cite sources?" Like a book that defines what "rational" means? Or do you mean cite examples of society at large believing that life is not an inherent evil?
What do you define as rational and if they are what modern society considers as rational
 
What do you define as rational and if they are what modern society considers as rational

What stands up to scrutiny. What stands up to peer review.

What things have stood up to scrutiny? Do you not live in modern society? Are you really asking me how modern society feels about blaming your parents for creating you?
 
And I suppose there are tiers to "social status?" If you're talking social status, you're asking for your parents to be famous. That's where you said it.
Are you kidding me? So social status is only to be famous and nothing else? There are no tiers to social status? A social status is not only your famous singer, actor, or politician. You have a higher social status if you are, for example, in the position of manager compared to your employees. Anybody who is higher positioned in his environment counts as having a higher social status. A senior worker has a higher social status than a new one, etc. What is this nonsense of black and white you are trying to portray here? This is hilarious. :feelskek: So no, that is not what I said. You made up that argument to serve your needs, and now you got lost in it. As I said, pathetic.
That was me pointing out that, whichever of the two positions you were taking, neither of them are reasonable. Turns out yours was the "Parents with low social status and looks and wealth shouldn't have children." Which is retarded.
I did not take any of your two positions, Mr. Strawman. You literally said I said that shit, then you claimed that I could not read and that you were quoting someone else and not me, and now you again got lost in it. Maybe they are not reasonable to you; who cares? Just present it as your opinion, not a general truth.
I specifically said this forum is not where you should find rational opinions. It never has been, remember how I described it as "an echo chamber for nonfunctioning autists?"

But you newcomers have fucked things up especially. Things were not as stupid before you showed up.
Yes, I remember you denigrating autists on this forum and acting like you are the truth-bearer. So why the fuck are you here if this is not a forum to find rational opinions, you normie Boomer? You just convinced yourself that you do not agree with opinions on this forum because they are not rational. Then you do not belong here; you are not a blackpiller.

Then what is not an echo chamber for "nonfunctioning autists"? IT? Reddit? Twitter? Facebook? Huh?

I am surprised you even made it this far on this forum with your normie viewpoints. I think that you have no business being here and you would be better suited to the likes of people on Reddit.
 
My mum is always a spiteful cunt for no reason anyway and my dad has quasi dementia from all the brain damage he has accrued over years of sleep apnea and all the other dumb shit he does. Kinda hard to respect them at this point. How can you be 60 years old and not have learnt anything in life.
 
I was poor too. And remain poor. Bitch talk, on your part.
Blkpillpres was right about you. You are a retarded bluepiller who go around on Reddit asking for advice to get laid while being an old bitch.

You are a fucking retard, I hope you kill yourself
 
When I say "rational" I mean "It holds up against scrutiny." But when you say "Acceptance is subjective," you disregard that as the metric for whether or not a thing is rational.
Your argument being acceptable is different from it being logical (holding up against scrutiny). Yes, acceptance does not give an idea credibility.
Antinatalism, as you cited it, is against all life.
8fetta

in order to be antinatalist, you either have to oppose (A) humans reproducing or (B) all sentient life (humans AND animals) reproducing (this is all consistent with the Wikipedia article).
Antinatalists aren't "against life," they're against reproduction.
And you said "I wouldn't go that far." That means you aren't going as far as "true antinatalism."
What? "True antinatalism" isn't a thing. You can't just make up an ideology and accuse me of not following it. No such thing exists.
You're picking and choosing which tenets you wanna believe in.
"Not wanting nonhumans to reproduce" is not a tenet of antinatalism. Read the article again:
Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans, but may encompass all sentient creatures, claiming that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general.
"MAY ENCOMPASS," not "SHOULD ENCOMPASS." I am not required to believe that all beings should not reproduce, I only have to believe that HUMANS shouldn't reproduce in order for me to qualify as an "antinatalist."
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding me? So social status is only to be famous and nothing else? There are no tiers to social status? A social status is not only your famous singer, actor, or politician. You have a higher social status if you are, for example, in the position of manager compared to your employees. Anybody who is higher positioned in his environment counts as having a higher social status. A senior worker has a higher social status than a new one, etc. What is this nonsense of black and white you are trying to portray here? This is hilarious. :feelskek: So no, that is not what I said. You made up that argument to serve your needs, and now you got lost in it. As I said, pathetic.

Fame in your career is still fame, and it's a vain and unnecessary thing.

I did not take any of your two positions, Mr. Strawman. You literally said I said that shit, then you claimed that I could not read and that you were quoting someone else and not me, and now you again got lost in it. Maybe they are not reasonable to you; who cares? Just present it as your opinion, not a general truth.

Your words: I was born ugly as shit, which ruined my life, and this, my friend, IS my parents fault. Whose genes are they? How have they compensated for it? That's you taking the latter position. That's you establishing that it's somehow an objective wrong to have children if you aren't pretty or famous enough.

Yes, I remember you denigrating autists on this forum and acting like you are the truth-bearer. So why the fuck are you here if this is not a forum to find rational opinions, you normie Boomer? You just convinced yourself that you do not agree with opinions on this forum because they are not rational. Then you do not belong here; you are not a blackpiller.

Then what is not an echo chamber for "nonfunctioning autists"? IT? Reddit? Twitter? Facebook? Huh?

I am surprised you even made it this far on this forum with your normie viewpoints. I think that you have no business being here and you would be better suited to the likes of people on Reddit.

I can care for people, but realize that they aren't in their right minds.

I’m asking who are you to decide what’s “rational” and what’s not

So you're challenging the idea that "rational" means "stands up to peer scrutiny?" Okay, what's your standard for rational?

How's this for a standard for "rational:" Is it even possible to do? Was it even possible for your parents to know what you wanted out of life before you were born? When you get right down to it, this is what makes people who blame their parents for having them so retarded. They talk as if someone could've asked them permission, asked them what they wanted out of life, when there was no "them" to check with. So it comes back to some objective standard for life, and how is anybody supposed to know your specific idea of what a proper life is?

Your argument being acceptable is different from it being logical (holding up against scrutiny). Yes, acceptance does not give an idea credibility.

What's acceptable is usually what's logical.

View attachment 1061234

Antinatalists aren't "against life," they're against reproduction.

What? "True antinatalism" isn't a thing. You can't just make up an ideology and accuse me of not following it. No such thing exists.

"Not wanting nonhumans to reproduce" is not a tenet of antinatalism. Read the article again:

"MAY ENCOMPASS," not "SHOULD ENCOMPASS." I am not required to believe that all beings should not reproduce, I only have to believe that HUMANS shouldn't reproduce in order for me to qualify as an "antinatalist."

Now you're splitting hairs. You cited a tenet of antinatalism, but you also wanna say "But maybe you don't have to believe in it and you can still be an antinatalist?"

But even if you could, antinatalism on its own doesn't stand up to peer scrutiny. Even if you wanna weasel into antinatalism by saying "I'm just a Humans-Should-Stop-Reproducing-Now-But-A-Few-Decades-Back-Maybe-It-Was-Acceptable Antinatalist," the arguments for that aren't rational. Rational arguments have been made to address those concerns. Stopping humanity at this point isn't necessary.
 
What's acceptable is usually what's logical.
"Usually," not always.
Now you're splitting hairs. You cited a tenet of antinatalism, but you also wanna say "But maybe you don't have to believe in it and you can still be an antinatalist?"
I'm not gonna argue anymore with you, bro. I already said what antinatalism is and isn't. Just go back and read it.
But even if you could, antinatalism on its own doesn't stand up to peer scrutiny.
What does this even mean? Peer scrutiny doesn't apply to philosophical arguments, it's used to assess scientific studies.
Even if you wanna weasel into antinatalism by saying "I'm just a Humans-Should-Stop-Reproducing-Now-But-A-Few-Decades-Back-Maybe-It-Was-Acceptable Antinatalist," the arguments for that aren't rational.
I never said that. You're strawmanning.
Rational arguments have been made to address those concerns.
What concerns? What arguments? You're fighting a phantom here. I don't even understand what you're talking about or what part of my argument you're scrutinizing. You're punching at the air, Frothy.
Stopping humanity at this point isn't necessary.
What do you mean? Why not? Humanity will just keep reproducing because the layman is controlled by his evolutionary instinct to breed.
 
So you're challenging the idea that "rational" means "stands up to peer scrutiny?" Okay, what's your standard for rational?

How's this for a standard for "rational:" Is it even possible to do? Was it even possible for your parents to know what you wanted out of life before you were born? When you get right down to it, this is what makes people who blame their parents for having them so retarded. They talk as if someone could've asked them permission, asked them what they wanted out of life, when there was no "them" to check with. So it comes back to some objective standard for life, and how is anybody supposed to know your specific idea of what a proper life is?
It’s pretty obvious people don’t want to live in poverty you moron have you thought about your arguments for more than 5 seconds you would know that you low iq boomer (edit 1):I’m getting sick of arguing with you I stated my point several times but you can’t seem to fucking grasp that concept
 
Last edited:
What does this even mean? Peer scrutiny doesn't apply to philosophical arguments, it's used to assess scientific studies.

Peer scrutiny applies to anything you mean to hold other people to. You can have your own personal feelings and opinions, but if you wanna start blaming other people for not believing in them, you need to give other people reasons to believe in them. That's why no one can blame their parents for having them simply because their kid develops a hatred for life itself.

I never said that. You're strawmanning.

I didn't say you did. You're even crazier. You're a "No-Humans-Ever-Should've-Been-Born Antinatalist."

What concerns? What arguments? You're fighting a phantom here. I don't even understand what you're talking about or what part of my argument you're scrutinizing. You're punching at the air, Frothy.

The concerns of antinatalists. Whatever it is that has convinced antinatalists that their feelings should not just be their own, and that other people should see life as they see it.

What do you mean? Why not? Humanity will just keep reproducing because the layman is controlled by his evolutionary instinct to breed.

Because life itself isn't the problem when it comes to the things antinatalists complain about. If the world is a bad place, you work to improve it. You don't doom humanity.

It’s pretty obvious people don’t want to live in poverty you moron have you thought about your arguments for more than 5 seconds you would know that you low iq boomer (edit 1):I’m getting sick of arguing with you I stated my point several times but you can’t seem to fucking grasp that concept

But were you actually poor? I asked you if your parents could afford to raise you and you were like "Ehhhhhhhh... but I didn't like it." Just because you don't get to live in the nice neighborhood doesn't mean you shouldn't have been born.
 
Fame in your career is still fame, and it's a vain and unnecessary thing.
You did not refute my claim. You said there are no tiers to social status, which is absurd nonsense. Blue pill talk, right there. Social status greatly affects how you are viewed by your peers and what kind of life you will have. Looks, money, and social status are the most important things and the highest factors that contribute to one's happiness. So It does not seem like unnecessary thing. Go back to reddit boomer.

So, what, only wealthy models who are famous should have children? I noticed you like the word scrutiny; I guess your strawman came under scrutiny and fell apart here.:feelskek: We got from wealthy and famous models to suddenly a fame in your career is still a fame. :feelskek: :feelskek:
Your words: I was born ugly as shit, which ruined my life, and this, my friend, IS my parents fault. Whose genes are they? How have they compensated for it? That's you taking the latter position. That's you establishing that it's somehow an objective wrong to have children if you aren't pretty or famous enough.
No, Mr. Strawman, again wrong. You are trying to push me into the position that you created. I expressed my own opinion. Again, it is not black and white. What is your metric for being pretty enough and famous enough? I am curious.

And where did you leave your rational society? Which one is it?
 
But were you actually poor? I asked you if your parents could afford to raise you and you were like "Ehhhhhhhh... but I didn't like it." Just because you don't get to live in the nice neighborhood doesn't mean you shouldn't have been born.
A.How are you going to tell me what experiences I lived you sound like a retarded redditor B. By technical definition I was literally near the poverty line so cope(edit 1):I tagged this as a venting post so why does it concern you what I and others think of our parents and then you want to spread your normie viewpoints
 
You did not refute my claim. You said there are no tiers to social status, which is absurd nonsense. Blue pill talk, right there. Social status greatly affects how you are viewed by your peers and what kind of life you will have. Looks, money, and social status are the most important things and the highest factors that contribute to one's happiness. So It does not seem like unnecessary thing. Go back to reddit boomer.

It's nice to be rich and famous. But you don't need it. You can want it, you can personally be miserable without it, but it's not such an objective need that you can turn to your parents and say "You should've known it wasn't fair to have a child when you didn't look a certain way or have a certain amount of respect in your careers."


So, what, only wealthy models who are famous should have children? I noticed you like the word scrutiny; I guess your strawman came under scrutiny and fell apart here.:feelskek: We got from wealthy and famous models to suddenly a fame in your career is still a fame. :feelskek: :feelskek:

Fame in your career is still fame. You're complaining about the same thing: My parents weren't rich/pretty/important.

No, Mr. Strawman, again wrong. You are trying to push me into the position that you created. I expressed my own opinion. Again, it is not black and white. What is your metric for being pretty enough and famous enough? I am curious.

And where did you leave your rational society? Which one is it?

Alright then. I cite your exact words and you wanna say "Oh no, that's not what I meant." You tell me what your dumbass position is, then, and I'll tell you why it's retarded. No weaseling out of it this time.

A.How are you going to tell me what experiences I lived you sound like a retarded redditor B. By technical definition I was literally near the poverty line so cope(edit 1):I tagged this as a venting post so why does it concern you what I and others think of our parents and then you want to spread your normie viewpoints

I'm asking you what your experiences were. I'm asking if your parents could afford to raise you, and you didn't say "No, they couldn't."

And does a Venting tag mean "My arguments aren't very strong but I just need some time to be angry please don't offer me critique?"
 
Peer scrutiny applies to anything you mean to hold other people to. You can have your own personal feelings and opinions, but if you wanna start blaming other people for not believing in them, you need to give other people reasons to believe in them. That's why no one can blame their parents for having them simply because their kid develops a hatred for life itself.
This is fucking hilarious. I couldn't not respond to this. TAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ADVICE BOOMER.

Let me repeat it: YOUR OPINION IS NOT A GENERAL TRUTH. No matter how much you are trying to shovel your stupid opinion down our throats, it still does not make it right.

That's why no one can blame their parents for having them simply because their kid develops a hatred for life itself.

Because you said it? Who are you to decide for people who they can blame or not? You can decide your own opinion and not the opinion of others.
 
You're even crazier. You're a "No-Humans-Ever-Should've-Been-Born Antinatalist."
:feelskek: Based.
The concerns of antinatalists. Whatever it is that has convinced antinatalists that their feelings should not just be their own, and that other people should see life as they see it.
The only way for voluntary extinction to happen is if ALL humans participate in it. This is a requirement if you want a peaceful end to human life.

Let the candles be extinguished.
SUu4AXiNvDVFMaEh8T.webp

Because life itself isn't the problem when it comes to the things antinatalists complain about. If the world is a bad place, you work to improve it. You don't doom humanity.
Some problems can't be solved.
 
I'm asking you what your experiences were. I'm asking if your parents could afford to raise you, and you didn't say "No, they couldn't."

And does a Venting tag mean "My arguments aren't very strong but I just need some time to be angry please don't offer me critique?"
Is it personally affecting you to the point where you respond hours later. I dislike my parents also got being idiots. MY quality of life was poor. and not making smart financial decisions also take your own advice and Learn to take a critique (edit 1) who asked for your shitty advice and critique it would be valid if it was actually logical :feelskek: but you seem to have some Reddit tier advice
 
This is fucking hilarious. I couldn't not respond to this. TAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ADVICE BOOMER.

Let me repeat it: YOUR OPINION IS NOT A GENERAL TRUTH. No matter how much you are trying to shovel your stupid opinion down our throats, it still does not make it right.

My points prevail in the free exchange of ideas. Your points are fringe even on this forum. My advice is "See how your ideas stand up if you're going to hold other people to them. Otherwise they're just your feelings." All you've got is "Well, I disagree." You can disagree if you want, but you can't make other people agree with you.

That's why no one can blame their parents for having them simply because their kid develops a hatred for life itself.

Because you said it? Who are you to decide for people who they can blame or not? You can decide your own opinion and not the opinion of others.

See? This right here is an example of how stupid your beliefs are. I present you with ideas that conflict with yours. You say "Well that's your opinion, I have my own." But if that's your take, you can't then turn around to your own parents and say "This is your fault, you should agree with me that my life is objectively bad and it's your fault." Why? Because you say it?

:feelskek: Based.

The only way for voluntary extinction to happen is if ALL humans participate in it. This is a requirement if you want a peaceful end to human life.

Let the candles be extinguished.
SUu4AXiNvDVFMaEh8T.webp


Some problems can't be solved.

If you're talking about humanity itself being a mistake down to the very first ape, that goes beyond the problems of the common antinatalist and it goes back to my original question: Why? Where do you get the idea that the very first ape was a mistake? Why is that something other people should believe in? How does that somehow lead to being able to accuse your parents of committing an objective harm by having you? But the lizards and frogs and fish and birds, they aren't a mistake?

Is it personally affecting you to the point where you respond hours later. I dislike my parents also got being idiots. MY quality of life was poor. and not making smart financial decisions also take your own advice and Learn to take a critique (edit 1) who asked for your shitty advice and critique it would be valid if it was actually logical :feelskek: but you seem to have some Reddit tier advice

I don't need your permission to post in this thread. I do need, however, to establish a standard for sanity around here. Think whatever dumbass things you want, but someone should be around to say "The things this man is saying are dumb."

And again, I asked if they could afford to raise you and you didn't say "No." You not liking your life is not the same as grounds to accuse your parents of intentionally fucking you. Because that's your standard, your opinion. They don't have to adhere to that.
 
It's nice to be rich and famous. But you don't need it. You can want it, you can personally be miserable without it, but it's not such an objective need that you can turn to your parents and say "You should've known it wasn't fair to have a child when you didn't look a certain way or have a certain amount of respect in your careers."
Again strawman. Tell me, retard, WHERE DID I SAY THAT I NEED TO BE RICH AND FAMOUS. I wanted a normal life with normal looks and decent social status to have decent happiness in my life. Nowhere did I say that I needed to be rich and famous. These are YOUR words.
Fame in your career is still fame. You're complaining about the same thing: My parents weren't rich/pretty/important.
You are legit retarded.
Alright then. I cite your exact words and you wanna say "Oh no, that's not what I meant." You tell me what your dumbass position is, then, and I'll tell you why it's retarded. No weaseling out of it this time.
If both of your parents are ugly, have low social status, and are poor, then of course it is their fault to bring you to this world, because you will only suffer. Incel son has a terrible life, and if he has nothing to compensate for his ugliness, then he will be suicidal most of his life past the puberty phase. Of course, such parents are to blame for this. These are all external factors that he could not influence in any way. These factors decided his fate.
 
If you're talking about humanity itself being a mistake down to the very first ape, that goes beyond the problems of the common antinatalist and it goes back to my original question: Why? Where do you get the idea that the very first ape was a mistake? Why is that something other people should believe in? How does that somehow lead to being able to accuse your parents of committing an objective harm by having you? But the lizards and frogs and fish and birds, they aren't a mistake?
Life perpetuates suffering.
 
My points prevail in the free exchange of ideas. Your points are fringe even on this forum. My advice is "See how your ideas stand up if you're going to hold other people to them. Otherwise they're just your feelings." All you've got is "Well, I disagree." You can disagree if you want, but you can't make other people agree with you.



See? This right here is an example of how stupid your beliefs are. I present you with ideas that conflict with yours. You say "Well that's your opinion, I have my own." But if that's your take, you can't then turn around to your own parents and say "This is your fault, you should agree with me that my life is objectively bad and it's your fault." Why? Because you say it?



If you're talking about humanity itself being a mistake down to the very first ape, that goes beyond the problems of the common antinatalist and it goes back to my original question: Why? Where do you get the idea that the very first ape was a mistake? Why is that something other people should believe in? How does that somehow lead to being able to accuse your parents of committing an objective harm by having you? But the lizards and frogs and fish and birds, they aren't a mistake?



I don't need your permission to post in this thread. I do need, however, to establish a standard for sanity around here. Think whatever dumbass things you want, but someone should be around to say "The things this man is saying are dumb."

And again, I asked if they could afford to raise you and you didn't say "No." You not liking your life is not the same as grounds to accuse your parents of intentionally fucking you. Because that's your standard, your opinion. They don't have to adhere to that.
Already several problems in each reply I’ll go 1 by. “But you can’t make others agree with you” literally everyone disagrees with you, “
Why? Because you say it?
Irony,
Think whatever dumbass things you want,
Even more irony of a boomer calling others a dumbass but you’ve seem to have some problem refuting my claim of “if your poor it isn’t wise to have children”
u. Because that's your standard, your opinion
Irony because you tried to force feed us your retarded opinion this entire thread so cope

Also have you considered the fact that more users would like you if you didn’t try to force feed us your opinions that you think are fact and anyone who disagrees with you, you would ad hominem them
 
Last edited:
Again strawman. Tell me, retard, WHERE DID I SAY THAT I NEED TO BE RICH AND FAMOUS. I wanted a normal life with normal looks and decent social status to have decent happiness in my life. Nowhere did I say that I needed to be rich and famous. These are YOUR words.

You are legit retarded.

If both of your parents are ugly, have low social status, and are poor, then of course it is their fault to bring you to this world, because you will only suffer. Incel son has a terrible life, and if he has nothing to compensate for his ugliness, then he will be suicidal most of his life past the puberty phase. Of course, such parents are to blame for this. These are all external factors that he could not influence in any way. These factors decided his fate.

So this isn't you saying it's an objective wrong to have kids if you "have low social status?"

Get the fuck over yourself, by the way. Again with this "low social status" bullshit and then saying "But I didn't say they had to be famous!" Status is fame. In all aspects. Get over yourself.

Life perpetuates suffering.

But why don't the fish and flies and every other living thing not have to be held to this standard? You think fish don't suffer?

Already several problems in each reply I’ll go 1 by. “But you can’t make others agree with you” literally everyone disagrees with you, “

You three in this thread? As I've said before, the vast majority of society would call you crazy for thinking what you think. Your ideas don't stand up.
 
But why don't the fish and flies and every other living thing not have to be held to this standard? You think fish don't suffer?
They do, but it's not my place to make them go extinct. :feelskek:
 
My points prevail in the free exchange of ideas. Your points are fringe even on this forum. My advice is "See how your ideas stand up if you're going to hold other people to them. Otherwise they're just your feelings." All you've got is "Well, I disagree." You can disagree if you want, but you can't make other people agree with you.
For the last time. Show me these other invisible people who back you up.

My points are fringe even on this forum. You are the only person here advocating this shit. So your own sentence relates to you, not me.
Otherwise they are just feelings. But yours, which nobody supports, are arguments, right? Learn to not mix general truths with your personal opinions, boomer.

" All you've got is "Well, I disagree."

Yeah, all you've got is "Well, I disagree." You are literally writing sentences against yourself that are appropriate for your opinions. :feelskek:
See? This right here is an example of how stupid your beliefs are. I present you with ideas that conflict with yours. You say "Well that's your opinion, I have my own." But if that's your take, you can't then turn around to your own parents and say "This is your fault, you should agree with me that my life is objectively bad and it's your fault." Why? Because you say it?
You present me with nothing, just your personal opinions. Let me tell you something, you retarded boomer. Just because you like your parents does not mean everybody has to. We can form our own opinions and don´t need you fucktard telling us what we can or cannot think. Go back to reddit.
So this isn't you saying it's an objective wrong to have kids if you "have low social status?"
Stop choosing one thing you retarded boomer pig. I said all three factors.

Get the fuck over yourself, by the way. Again with this "low social status" bullshit and then saying "But I didn't say they had to be famous!" Status is fame. In all aspects. Get over yourself.
Learn to read and comprehend written text. Being famous worldwide and having social status in your work/life are quite different things.
 
For the last time. Show me these other invisible people who back you up.

My points are fringe even on this forum. You are the only person here advocating this shit. So your own sentence relates to you, not me.
Otherwise they are just feelings. But yours, which nobody supports, are arguments, right? Learn to not mix general truths with your personal opinions, boomer.

" All you've got is "Well, I disagree."

Yeah, all you've got is "Well, I disagree." You are literally writing sentences against yourself that are appropriate for your opinions. :feelskek:

You present me with nothing, just your personal opinions. Let me tell you something, you retarded boomer. Just because you like your parents does not mean everybody has to. We can form our own opinions and don´t need you fucktard telling us what we can or cannot think. Go back to reddit.

Stop choosing one thing you retarded boomer pig. I said all three factors.


Learn to read and comprehend written text. Being famous worldwide and having social status in your work/life are quite different things.
high iq reply
 
ad populum

My ideas have been scrutinized by more people. You throw around "ad populum" as if peer review isn't the basis of every standard we establish.

They do, but it's not my place to make them go extinct. :feelskek:

It's not your place to make anyone go extinct. We're not talking about what you can force anyone to do, we're talking about whether or not it's objectively true that certain creatures should not have ever lived.

For the last time. Show me these other invisible people who back you up.

Which people? People living in society? You don't mean that. You don't actually mean "I don't believe it's very unpopular to blame your parents for having you."


My points are fringe even on this forum. You are the only person here advocating this shit. So your own sentence relates to you, not me.
Otherwise they are just feelings. But yours, which nobody supports, are arguments, right? Learn to not mix general truths with your personal opinions, boomer.

" All you've got is "Well, I disagree."

Yeah, all you've got is "Well, I disagree." You are literally writing sentences against yourself that are appropriate for your opinions. :feelskek:

This is one thread, and you're fucking new here. Trust me when I say most people on this forum don't believe their parents should've had the psychic foresight to know their child would've grown up to post on Incels.is.

But I've got more than "I disagree." I've got "The world has heard your arguments and found them lacking."

You present me with nothing, just your personal opinions. Let me tell you something, you retarded boomer. Just because you like your parents does not mean everybody has to. We can form our own opinions and don´t need you fucktard telling us what we can or cannot think. Go back to reddit.

Again you fall back to "Well I've got my own feelings, you can't tell me what to feel." I don't know how many more ways I can spell this out for you: It stops being your opinion when you hold other people to it. And when you blame your parents, you hold them to your opinions. This is when you start making the case for it being an objective truth, and that's when you have to put it to the actual test. And you've got fucking nada to back it up other than "Well why do I have to like my life??? It's my opinion what kind of life I want!"

Stop choosing one thing you retarded boomer pig. I said all three factors.

Learn to read and comprehend written text. Being famous worldwide and having social status in your work/life are quite different things.

Nah, fame is fame. You can't tell your parents they were objectively wrong for not being famous. You can be as pissy as you want about not having famous parents, I understand that it hurts to not have fame. I like fame too. But that's your hangup. You can't put that on your parents. They had no obligation to seek status in their careers.

That's the position you need to defend, somehow. The position that it's irresponsible to not be famous, pretty, or wealthy. That simply being able to afford to raise and love a child isn't enough. And all you've got is "Well why do I have to like parents who don't have status?" Which is fucking nothing.
 
Well which one is it

What? In both of those statements I say "I have the majority of society on my side here, you three only have you three right now."
 
What? In both of those statements I say "I have the majority of society on my side here, you three only have you three right now."
You literally said “my ideas have been scrutinized” those two statements contradict each other :feelskek:
 
Which people? People living in society? You don't mean that. You don't actually mean "I don't believe it's very unpopular to blame your parents for having you."
So you have nobody to show me who is supporting your claims.
This is one thread, and you're fucking new here. Trust me when I say most people on this forum don't believe their parents should've had the psychic foresight to know their child would've grown up to post on Incels.is.
"Trust me". Yeah, that is your argument. And argument about me being "new" here. You know how I see it? Let's count the people who agreed with your opinions, and then the people who agreed with my and op opinions. And no, your "trust me, bro source." Let's look at it, because that is what is factual and can be verified. You said most people on this forum are on your side, but everybody wrote exactly the different opinion in this thread.
Again you fall back to "Well I've got my own feelings, you can't tell me what to feel." I don't know how many more ways I can spell this out for you: It stops being your opinion when you hold other people to it. And when you blame your parents, you hold them to your opinions. This is when you start making the case for it being an objective truth, and that's when you have to put it to the actual test. And you've got fucking nada to back it up other than "Well why do I have to like my life??? It's my opinion what kind of life I want!"
So you do not hold other people in this thread to your opinions and call their opinions retarded because they do not align with yours, right? Stop writing, please, because you are catching yourself in your own words. :feelskek: :feelskek: And stop strawmaning, because it is you who present your opinions as a general truth, not me.
Nah, fame is fame. You can't tell your parents they were objectively wrong for not being famous.
You are legit stupid. Having an average social status is being famous?
You three in this thread?
What three? You did not learn to count? There are a lot of people in this thread who agree with the OP. AND NOBODY WHO AGREE WITH YOU MORON. So get it through your fucking skull; you are alone here with your normie talk.
 
Because the parents haven't prepared you enough for the society, you have to live miseably. Interesting. As a physician, I tried to look back, I think I may have high-function ASD according to DSM-V criteria. My life in grade school was miserable, got bullied a lot. I failed in almost everything that I tried to do. I cannot ride a bicycle. I had a GF once but that foid don't let me F her. The reason for me to become a doctor is that you don't need to have social interaction with other people in the same level much, and it give me financial stability. I think it is quite suitable for incels huh?

The big question is, today, do you suffer enough outside of your petty comfort zone? If not try it again and again.

I think I should going back to swipe on Tinder now. May the god provide a light skin, big boobs, oriental foids who look line J-Pop idols for me today?
@proudweeb
 
You literally said “my ideas have been scrutinized” those two statements contradict each other :feelskek:

"Scrutinized" means "Looked at and evaluated."

So you have nobody to show me who is supporting your claims.

"Trust me". Yeah, that is your argument. And argument about me being "new" here. You know how I see it? Let's count the people who agreed with your opinions, and then the people who agreed with my and op opinions. And no, your "trust me, bro source." Let's look at it, because that is what is factual and can be verified. You said most people on this forum are on your side, but everybody wrote exactly the different opinion in this thread.

I'm not digging people up because you know your ideas are not popular. You're doing what you did last time: Denial until someone can shove something in your face.

So you do not hold other people in this thread to your opinions and call their opinions retarded because they do not align with yours, right? Stop writing, please, because you are catching yourself in your own words. :feelskek: :feelskek: And stop strawmaning, because it is you who present your opinions as a general truth, not me.

I advocate for my opinions because they've stood up to challenge. But you don't like that, so I said "Fine, let's do it your way." And your way is "What makes you the boss of me? Why do I have to feel the way you do about things?" Out-fucking-standing. So what makes you the boss of your parents? Why do they have to feel the way you do about being famous?

We could've done this by seeing whose ideas stood up. But you wanna play the "It's my opinion" game. Fair enough. Your opinions mean nothing to everyone except you.
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top