RobertGarnicasAPedo
Robert Garnica = Princess_Kitty14. He's a pedo.
★★★★★
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2023
- Posts
- 498
It's funny how the same dipshits accusing us of "false equivalency" (the term is "false equivalence") are constantly making false comparisons when they try to show that we're the hypocrites, when in actuality, they are.
Take for example the fact that several of their users have been proven to be predators of teenage girls (Robert Garnica (Princess_Kitty14) and Adam Dooling (AdvocateDoogy) being the most prominent).
Whenever confronted with the facts, IncelTear users tell us they don't care, and that we're somehow worse because users on here talk about being attracted to teenage girls.
To anyone who isn't a disingenuous moron, of course, those two things are nothing alike, and in no way make us hypocrites.
There is literally nothing wrong with thinking teen girls are hot. Why would there be? Aside from the fact that it's true of literally every heterosexual man on earth, there is nothing to ground the moral judgment against it. There is nothing to show a divine creator said that teenagers are off limits for attraction. The church married teenagers for years. And there is nothing in the legal system that says it is illegal to find teenage girls sexually attractive. It's only illegal to act on it.
On the other hand, there is plenty to show that stealing someone's identity - in this case, a teenage Korean instagram model named Yu_Jeong - and offering her "virginity" to strangers on r/virginityexchange is something a divine creator would consider sinful, and there are things in the legal system to address this sort of thing.
In the case of Dooling and "grooming," that doesn't fit either criteria for being "wrong," but it's still completely different to act on the attraction, as opposed to not acting on it. It doesn't make us hypocrites because we don't do anything other than state opinions. We're also the ones reacting to the people who started the faux-outrage in the first place - IncelTear. That makes you the hypocrites. If you hadn't pretended to be outraged about us being "pedophiles," we wouldn't have responded by pointing out what fucking hypocrites you are.
Now, let me explain how analogies work.
The point of an analogy is to show the absurdity of an argument by making a comparison between one absurd argument and another, using the same logic.
This is what WishIStayedHome doesn't get. The entire argument that incels aren't entitled to sex is based on what the legal system says. There is nothing else that says that. Marriages used to be arranged for years, and they still are in certain parts of the world dominated by certain religions. Men weren't entitled to rape random women, but they were entitled to sex with a spouse they were given in an arranged marriage.
So you're left with the "legal system in western civilizations" argument.
Well, the legal system also shows that you aren't entitled to a number of other things that you think people should be entitled to. These include food, unlimited opioids for chronic pain patients, respect for women, easy access to abortion in every state after Roe v. Wade was overturned, etc.
But you don't like that, do you? You wish you were entitled to those things, right?
Just like we wish we were entitled to sex.
Other than the legal system, you have no argument. "Nobody should have the right to somebody else's body" is just your opinion. You don't get objective ethics from your "feelings." My feelings say your feelings are wrong. Now what?
The only way to get objective ethics in metaphysics is for them to exist outside the mind and be binding. You need something to bind matter to ideas.
To get around this problem, as well as the fact that the Abrahamic religions say you are being sinful, some of you have tried to invent your own God (s). You invent your own Gods for yourselves in order to justify your desires. This translates to, "God doesn't agree with me, therefore I'm going to invent my own God who agrees with me. I know more about ethics than my creator. I want to be my own God."
And you guys call other people "narcissists."
Take for example the fact that several of their users have been proven to be predators of teenage girls (Robert Garnica (Princess_Kitty14) and Adam Dooling (AdvocateDoogy) being the most prominent).
Whenever confronted with the facts, IncelTear users tell us they don't care, and that we're somehow worse because users on here talk about being attracted to teenage girls.
To anyone who isn't a disingenuous moron, of course, those two things are nothing alike, and in no way make us hypocrites.
There is literally nothing wrong with thinking teen girls are hot. Why would there be? Aside from the fact that it's true of literally every heterosexual man on earth, there is nothing to ground the moral judgment against it. There is nothing to show a divine creator said that teenagers are off limits for attraction. The church married teenagers for years. And there is nothing in the legal system that says it is illegal to find teenage girls sexually attractive. It's only illegal to act on it.
On the other hand, there is plenty to show that stealing someone's identity - in this case, a teenage Korean instagram model named Yu_Jeong - and offering her "virginity" to strangers on r/virginityexchange is something a divine creator would consider sinful, and there are things in the legal system to address this sort of thing.
In the case of Dooling and "grooming," that doesn't fit either criteria for being "wrong," but it's still completely different to act on the attraction, as opposed to not acting on it. It doesn't make us hypocrites because we don't do anything other than state opinions. We're also the ones reacting to the people who started the faux-outrage in the first place - IncelTear. That makes you the hypocrites. If you hadn't pretended to be outraged about us being "pedophiles," we wouldn't have responded by pointing out what fucking hypocrites you are.
Now, let me explain how analogies work.
The point of an analogy is to show the absurdity of an argument by making a comparison between one absurd argument and another, using the same logic.
This is what WishIStayedHome doesn't get. The entire argument that incels aren't entitled to sex is based on what the legal system says. There is nothing else that says that. Marriages used to be arranged for years, and they still are in certain parts of the world dominated by certain religions. Men weren't entitled to rape random women, but they were entitled to sex with a spouse they were given in an arranged marriage.
So you're left with the "legal system in western civilizations" argument.
Well, the legal system also shows that you aren't entitled to a number of other things that you think people should be entitled to. These include food, unlimited opioids for chronic pain patients, respect for women, easy access to abortion in every state after Roe v. Wade was overturned, etc.
But you don't like that, do you? You wish you were entitled to those things, right?
Just like we wish we were entitled to sex.
Other than the legal system, you have no argument. "Nobody should have the right to somebody else's body" is just your opinion. You don't get objective ethics from your "feelings." My feelings say your feelings are wrong. Now what?
The only way to get objective ethics in metaphysics is for them to exist outside the mind and be binding. You need something to bind matter to ideas.
To get around this problem, as well as the fact that the Abrahamic religions say you are being sinful, some of you have tried to invent your own God (s). You invent your own Gods for yourselves in order to justify your desires. This translates to, "God doesn't agree with me, therefore I'm going to invent my own God who agrees with me. I know more about ethics than my creator. I want to be my own God."
And you guys call other people "narcissists."
