I mean't difference in the act itself, not difference in the lost of worth to society
Blackpill If You'd Kill An Adult Male, But Women Or Children Are Off Limits, You Don't Have A "Code", YOU ARE JUST A HYPOCRITE
I mean't difference in the act itself, not difference in the lost of worth to society
Another pseudo-intellectual, but incredibly low IQ thread by OP. Kids are off-limits, but once they enter puberty, they aren't.
based
Off limits for what?
For those who think kids are all innocent, check out the murder of James Bulger.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia
Actively, knowingly harming them.
Not surprised. They're British. British people are evil scum anyway, whether young or old.For those who think kids are all innocent, check out the murder of James Bulger.
Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia
For a moment there I thought you were being sarcastic, because a key point of this thread is pointing out arbitrary reasoning as to why children are off limits, and you then assert they are off limits........ because they are off limits, no reasoning given JFL
The irony of you calling anyone low IQ, you can't even justify an argument, you are stating it as though its true because you said it, what is your reasoning, I already know its going to be arbitrary, and the same argument you'd made someone could make their own version of it for why women are off limits, so you saying children are off limits but you don't say the same for women at the same time, only shows your bias, and many people share that same bias but for women, so they are equally as right as you to say women are off limits
Either everybody is on the table or everybody is off the table, you can't arbitrarily pick and choose, all lives are insignificant when you really think about it, you just have a soft spot for children, and you lack the self awareness required to admit that, if you lived a different life and women had treated you well, and you got laid often, you'd be making the same retard argument in defense of women, talk about lack of self awareness
Only low IQ here is you
Are you me? Its literally the same reasoning for myself.
Murder is always bad. But I do think that murdering a child is much worse than a grown adult. Kids are, somewhat, innocent. They don't understand the way the world works, and yes they are children who have done terrible things, but this is still a rare case.
I do think that killing a child is much worse than an adult
I do think that killing a child is much worse than an adult
I am a manifestation of your own thoughts- a reflection of the romantic isolation that all of us here face.
E
i don't think inmates care if you attack a woman. most inmates don't care about that. they will get mad if you attack little kids though
I find it weird that someone would say that attacking women and children is "unmanly". Attacking children isn't manly or unmanly. It's neither. I don't think it's unmanly to attack women. Violence against women is part of hyper masculine culture and hyper masculine men are more likely to attack their wife. Men who aren't hyper masculine are the least likely to beat their wife. If attacking someone weaker than you is unmanly, then isn't beating a shorter man unmanly? If you beat up someone weaker BECAUSE they're vulnerable maybe that's unmanly. but if you beat them up for a completely different reason, there's nothing unmanly about you. REFUSING to attack women because you're afraid of being called a woman beater is what I call "unmanly". Hypermasculine men don't have this unusually large amount of respect for women. Stone Cold Steve Austin beat his wife. Is he unmanly? Saying he's unmanly is a retarded thing to say.
Last edited:
Didn't read. You think I'll read any post of yours after such a retarded statement?
B
@BlackPill Scholar
I've read some retarded shit on the internet, but this easily makes the top 5.
How the fuck, then, do you define innocence in that warped worldview of yours?
You think like a soulless soldier when they're ordered to open fire on an entire village in an ethnic cleansing operation.
I've read some retarded shit on the internet, but this easily makes the top 5.
How the fuck, then, do you define innocence in that warped worldview of yours?
You think like a soulless soldier when they're ordered to open fire on an entire village in an ethnic cleansing operation.
Last edited:
Why did you tag me in this?
@based_meme did you confuse me with @BlkPillPres because I'm not him lol.
Last edited:
B
I tagged you because your thread runs counter to this and thought you might have something to say about it.
Besides, how would anyone confuse a name that doesn't fully spell out Black AND has no spaces with another that does?
I don't know, I was just really confused.
In my thread I was talking about evolutionary theory and how we innately treat women better because of the value they provide in child rearing. But in this post it talks more about the morality of women and children compared to men. I don't know enough about this to put forward any arguments that have any value at all.
B
But don't you see the connecting threads? There's an inherent moral aversion to killing children and women precisely because of evolutionary biological instincts of gene preservation and the increased evolutionary value of women over men.
Come on, brocel, I thought you would put two and two together here.
Sorry, I just read the thread title and inferred that was what it was about. I'm feeling really lazy anyway, way too lazy to write a few paragraphs.
B
Ayy LMAO. You and me both.
This is why kratos is one of my favorite fictional characters, even if he mogs me. That fucker is indiscriminate in his killings.
Feminists were in an uproar because one scene had him prop a gate open with a foids body
Feminists were in an uproar because one scene had him prop a gate open with a foids body
The retarded response I wrote about this thread not relating to my one was pretty much an excuse because I was too lazy to read this one and write a response to it lol. Spergy on my part ngl.
There's no such thing as "innocence", its just this BS humans came up with due to emotions (keep in mind I'm clearly not talking about someone being "innocent" as in relation to a crime, I'm talking about the cultural context of "innocence" where a person is seen as "uncorrupted")
The very nature of existence makes every being inherently corrupt, that cute "innocent" little girl who lives down the street is gonna grow up to be a cruel stacey that bullies some incel into suicide
There are a lot of malicious things that babies do that we see as "innocent" because its "cute" when they do it because its harmless, but think about the nature of the act and the implications it holds for understanding the psyche of a human being, or any animal at that
A common thing for babies to do when playing is to hit you, and when you make a pained face, they laugh.
Of course you and the parents laugh along with the baby, but separate that act from its context of "awww soo cute, he's just playing trying to hurt us" and it shows you just how sinister humans are, and all animals period, there is something in us that makes us feel excitement and glee when harm comes to others, especially when we cause it, better known as SCHADENFREUDE
Nature is inherently a sinister thing, humans just like to "romaticize" every aspect of our existence, but nobody and nothing living is innocent, all living things are corrupted by their very nature, their instincts
The reason why people like you have trouble understanding my "warped worldview" is because you still think like normie, you don't think about things abstractly, you don't separate concepts from their cultural context, you don't look at things from an outside looking in perspective, all you see is what normies see, with your particular flavor of lense filter so you can justify your bias towards some things, while rationalizing the same biases you hold that normies also hold with subjective excuses
A lot of you guys are really no different than normies, you are just kidding yourself thinking you are black pilled, there are lines you won't cross mentally, things you won't ever question, because they are too far outside of the ruleset you were indoctrinated with, and you are all too comfortable within that ruleset, with whatever addendum you've made to appeal to whatever new bias dawns upon you, the exact kind of man that if he woke up to women loving him tomorrow, he would denounce the black pill and pretend like he never believed in it
Again, another example of you being unable to think about things abstractly, and just spouting more "I was thought to think like this" normie BS (what are you doing on this forum?)
Who the hell ever said a "soul" is only ever "good" so only those lacking it are "evil", are there seriously no "evil souls" in existence?, are all souls "good" by default?
Anime.
Tbh. This is mostly true. If u Jill kid or man it's same shit. Maybe worse to kill man cause man farms gdp. Also killing kid can be considered compassion in some cases.
JFL at equalityI can understand sparing children. They are more vulnerable, defenseless, mostly innocent and have all their lives ahead of them.
But women? Why? Didn't they fight so hard for equality?
B
Your argument for why innonence is imaginary and that no one is innocent is because of some non-zero probability that a person might possibly commit some act in some possible future, therefore they aren't innocent now?
Yeah, that's some retarded reasoning, brocel.
Some babies =/= all babies.
No, you don't get to do that. You don't get to say, on one on hand, that there is no such thing as "innocence" and that nobody is inherently innocent, then, on the other hand, say that nature is inherently "sinister". You're ascribing the existence of good and evil selectively.
That's terrible reasoning.
Is because your worldview is illogical and internally inconsistent, as I just showed.
I'm just going to let irony do the work here.
Last edited:
No my reasoning is they are already corrupted, they just aren't at the age where they can express that corruption, refer back to my example with babies, from birth you are "corrupted" as a being, you are arguing that not being competent enough to express malice makes one "innocent", that's ridiculous
You are ironically making the NAWALT argument here
1. Nobody said anything about good or evil, you are the only person ascribing meanings here
2. If I say there is no such thing as innocence and nature is inherently sinister, I'm not saying two different things, I'm saying the same thing twice, when I said there is no such thing as innocence that's like saying - "good doesn't exist", and when I said nature is inherently sinister that's like saying "only evil exists"
You are speaking as if I'm making some contradictory statement when I merely repeated a stance using different wording, saying that "no innocents exist" is the same as saying "all things that exist are not innocent (nature is sinister)", its the same thing said a different way, read it over again
The only thing you showed is your inability to properly read my arguments, you literally just took two statements that are the same thing said a different way, and argued it was contradictory, english must not be your first language or something
JFL the irony
Last edited:
Fuck chivalry. A product from the barbaric middle ages.
Shit man
Similar threads
Why are people content with being a lowly worshipper of a higher power? This is the ultimate cuckery
- Clavicus Vile
- Inceldom Discussion
InceldianWarrior
Users who are viewing this thread
