F
TL;DR for the faggots: I pointed out that if you appeal to "nature" to explain inceldom, then you must also accept that rape, violence, and coercion are "natural," since they are widespread in the animal world. IT tried to counter with three points: first, that dominant males also kill weaker ones (which only confirms my point, since it shows where appeals to nature actually lead); second, that some animals like jumping spiders rely on female choice (which does not erase the many species where coercion is common, such as ducks, orangutans, and chimps); and third, that it is "not even academically defensible" to say rape is natural because bonobos are different (which ignores the fact that coercion is common enough in primates to be studied extensively, and that academia often bends its language to fit liberal morality rather than plain evidence).
What a wonderful way to end the week, being featured on IncelTears. I have been hoping for this since I joined the forum, and at last it happened. For context, the post of mine that got their attention was this:
I think the point stands without much embellishment: when people lean on "nature" to make arguments, they rarely understand or remain consistent about what that means. Still, here are some of the responses and my thoughts.
Is this not exactly what I was saying? If you are pointing out that appeals to nature lead you to uncomfortable or grotesque conclusions, then you are in agreement with me. The whole reason I called the naturalistic argument absurd is because once you apply it consistently, you wind up justifying things you yourself would never tolerate!
First, I did not claim that every single animal mates by force. I said animals mate as they can, often by force. That means some species rely more on displays, others on gifts, and others on sheer physical dominance, but coercion and force are widespread strategies in the natural world. You can point to jumping spiders or certain birds where males wait for female choice, but I can point to ducks, orangutans, chimpanzees, and many other species where sexual coercion is well documented. The point is not that all animals do it in every case, but that it is a common enough reproductive strategy across species that you cannot wave it away by citing a few exceptions.
Chimpanzees and orangutans both show sexual coercion, and it is common enough that researchers have studied it extensively. Even if some chimp groups punish it, that only proves it happens often enough to require punishment. Nobody bothers to punish behavior that never occurs. As for bonobos, yes, they are an interesting exception, but they are an exception precisely because their social system is so unusual. The fact that we can name them at all shows how rare such cases are.
Also, saying it is "not even academically defensible" really just shows where academia is at. I could write an entire thread on this, but in brief, scholars adjust their language to fit liberal morality, because if they do not, they risk their careers. They have to say that race is a social construct and that there is only one race, the human race, regardless of what the evidence shows. The evidence is usually clear enough, but by the time it appears in journals and conferences it is wrapped in moral language so nobody takes offense. What I am getting at is that you cannot take academic consensus as the final word, because it has been wrong plenty of times before. When Giordano Bruno said the earth revolves around the sun he was burned at the stake, since the Christcucks of his time could not accept it. Today academics are not killed, but they do not dare speak the truth, since they know they will lose their careers, their livelihood, and whatever respect they have.
What a wonderful way to end the week, being featured on IncelTears. I have been hoping for this since I joined the forum, and at last it happened. For context, the post of mine that got their attention was this:
I hate the appeal to nature argument because most people who use it do not even know what "nature" they are appealing to. Every other animal simply mates as it can, often by force. We, on the other hand, made reproduction dependent on female choice and look at where it has led. If one were truly to appeal to nature, then rape would be more "natural" than modern dating. Perhaps the people who sneer that we are incels because of "natural selection" would like to be on the receiving end of that same "natural" process themselves.
I think the point stands without much embellishment: when people lean on "nature" to make arguments, they rarely understand or remain consistent about what that means. Still, here are some of the responses and my thoughts.
Is this not exactly what I was saying? If you are pointing out that appeals to nature lead you to uncomfortable or grotesque conclusions, then you are in agreement with me. The whole reason I called the naturalistic argument absurd is because once you apply it consistently, you wind up justifying things you yourself would never tolerate!
First, I did not claim that every single animal mates by force. I said animals mate as they can, often by force. That means some species rely more on displays, others on gifts, and others on sheer physical dominance, but coercion and force are widespread strategies in the natural world. You can point to jumping spiders or certain birds where males wait for female choice, but I can point to ducks, orangutans, chimpanzees, and many other species where sexual coercion is well documented. The point is not that all animals do it in every case, but that it is a common enough reproductive strategy across species that you cannot wave it away by citing a few exceptions.
Chimpanzees and orangutans both show sexual coercion, and it is common enough that researchers have studied it extensively. Even if some chimp groups punish it, that only proves it happens often enough to require punishment. Nobody bothers to punish behavior that never occurs. As for bonobos, yes, they are an interesting exception, but they are an exception precisely because their social system is so unusual. The fact that we can name them at all shows how rare such cases are.
Also, saying it is "not even academically defensible" really just shows where academia is at. I could write an entire thread on this, but in brief, scholars adjust their language to fit liberal morality, because if they do not, they risk their careers. They have to say that race is a social construct and that there is only one race, the human race, regardless of what the evidence shows. The evidence is usually clear enough, but by the time it appears in journals and conferences it is wrapped in moral language so nobody takes offense. What I am getting at is that you cannot take academic consensus as the final word, because it has been wrong plenty of times before. When Giordano Bruno said the earth revolves around the sun he was burned at the stake, since the Christcucks of his time could not accept it. Today academics are not killed, but they do not dare speak the truth, since they know they will lose their careers, their livelihood, and whatever respect they have.
