jfl Incels arguing about 14-15 years old jailbaits, like you have any chance to taste one.
Serious Pedophiles and Pedophile Sympathizers are a CANCER on the Incel Community
- Status
E
sour grapes
They'll grasp at anything they can to justify their indoctrinated normie beliefs. Then when it doesn't work they keep moving the goal post.
Degenerate thread tbh.
All pedos need to be shot on sight.
Same goes for the child molesters on IT's.
All pedos need to be shot on sight.
Same goes for the child molesters on IT's.
google "Eunice Johns and Charlie Johns" you'll get plenty of sources.
Agree. This is a fine example that not only is what age one is ready for marriage arbitrary, it also shows marriages not only can work with young girls, but that they can be much more successful since they are easier to please. The dude in the pic would stand no chance in the modern world. Yet he managed to get 7 kids by marrying and grooming a loli.
There's a reason (((feminism))) was so keen on increasing the AoC.
Lolis are Love.
It's easier to seduce younger girls, though. Not that I would try
Because this power imbalance exclusively benefits men, especially low-value men. And we can't have LVM winning or succeeding in anything beyond being wage cucks
Last edited:
I've talked about this very thing before:
The Structure Of Modern Age Of Consent Laws Is About Keeping Low Tier Males As Perpetual Losers And Opposing "Patriarchal Norms"
I've been thinking about how modern age of consent works and its completely illogical, and the only reason I can see for its current structure is to prevent men who "failed" in their teens from ever experiencing "teen love" 1. How age of consent laws make no sense logically Think about it, the...
incels.is
This, JFL at all these incels being against something that is in their own interest - "Nah to hell with young girls with lower standards who would grow to "love" me, I'd much rather try my hand at a "full bodied" woman who only wants me for betabuxx, because that makes me feel like "a real man", did I mention how masculine I am"
Last edited:
I've talked about this very thing before:
The Structure Of Modern Age Of Consent Laws Is About Keeping Low Tier Males As Perpetual Losers And Opposing "Patriarchal Norms"
I've been thinking about how modern age of consent works and its completely illogical, and the only reason I can see for its current structure is to prevent men who "failed" in their teens from ever experiencing "teen love" 1. How age of consent laws make no sense logically Think about it, the...
This, JFL at all these incels being against something that is in their own interest - "Nah to hell with young girls with lower standards who would grow to "love" me, I'd much rather try my hand at a "full bodied" woman who only wants me for betabuxx, because that makes me feel like "a real man", did I mention how masculine I am"
Exactly! God, I'm so glad to see someone who gets it. Younger girls have lower standards, even if they are still hypergamous. Even if a 20 y/o is an untouched virgin, her standards will still be higher than an untouched 10 y/o girl.
And like you say, on top of that, by being intimate with her at a young, impressionable age, an age where her neuroplasticity is still present and where she still hasn't discovered the ability to control men with her vagina, she will be far easier to please, far more eager to please and follow you.
And she hasn't had simps complimenting her for years since she turned 11, meaning that not only is seducing her with sweet words easier, it will also have more of an impact on her mind. Similar to how the average male is more impacted by females' complimenting him due to how few he's gotten. This logic also applies to little girls, since they too have gotten few compliments by that point in their lives vs when they are 20
Go to CuckTears if you want to fuck children
I don't think guys realize just how attached girls are to their fathers, a lot of girls usually have this weird daddy issue thing where they are looking for their fathers in men, which is why women usually like dating older guys (preferably handsome older guys)
If you basically "raise" your wife, you not only have the "Just Be First" rule acting in your favor, you have the "Electra Complex " working in your favor, she is going to be ridiculously attached to you, an army of giga chads could appear and she still may not even cheat on you, every positive memory of a man associated with romantic feelings will be associated with you
What Is the Electra Complex in Psychoanalytic Theory?
Carl Jung described the Electra complex—a girl's sense of competition with her mother for her father's affection—as the female version of the Oedipus complex.
Go to CuckTears if you want to fuck children
Are you saying if you got a loli on entry you wouldn't join
I'd order an entire case of soylent online and just pretend to be blue pilled
"Here's some gold kind strangerino", I'm logging in every fucking day so they don't suspect me
D
Agree with this.
I think it's pretty lame to be so outspoken about preferences that'll get you beat up by 90% of the normie population. Unnecessary is the word.
I don't think guys realize just how attached girls are to their fathers, a lot of girls usually have this weird daddy issue thing where they are looking for their fathers in men, which is why women usually like dating older guys (preferably handsome older guys)
If you basically "raise" your wife, you not only have the "Just Be First" rule acting in your favor, you have the "Electra Complex " working in your favor, she is going to be ridiculously attached to you, an army of giga chads could appear and she still may not even cheat on you, every positive memory of a man associated with romantic feelings will be associated with you
What Is the Electra Complex in Psychoanalytic Theory?
Carl Jung described the Electra complex—a girl's sense of competition with her mother for her father's affection—as the female version of the Oedipus complex.www.verywellmind.com
Yes, this is something else I noticed, especially since I have three younger sisters. Girls, no matter how much feminism you pump into them, will almost always have some remnant of respect for the males that raised her (father/older brothers). thus, as a husband, if you are to be one of those males that raise her, she will see you in a much more familial loving light.
They look like children, this is disgusting
H
Mass murder is dumb tbh, why go down while killing randoms and feed the media and bring everyone else who suffers more hate? It changes nothing for the better, it only satisfies your anger
Tldr
Disgusting
This subject is not anywhere near as clearcut as you make it out to be. It's not settled to what extent teenage impulsivity and risk-taking is caused by a lack of brain development and how much of it caused by other factors.
This meta-analysis found that teenage girls are much less prone to risk-taking behavior than teenage boys. I think it would be a mistake to conclude from this that their brains are more mature than those of their male peers because those are, at least in part, evolved behaviors related to male sex hormones that reward impulsivity and risk-taking behaviors and encourage displays of dominance, as opposed to uniquely being caused by a lack of brain development.
By injecting teenage boys with female sex hormones or castrating them, such behaviors can be reduced to a significant extent or even eliminated. But even if you were to accept the argument that girls' brains mature faster than boys', that would be a strong argument in favor of having a lower age of consent for girls than for boys, don't you think?
There is solid evidence that teenage boys with ADHD, who are much more impulsive and prone to risk-taking behavior than regular teenagers, are much more likely to impregnate their female peers than teenagers who do not have that neurodevelopmental disorder. Maybe behaviors that increase male reproductive success in a modern context, rather from being a bug and/or a sign of impaired development, are actually a feature of evolution?
There are advantages and disadvantages to being a disinhibited, impulsive, and risk-risking teenager or adult. But it's entirely possible that such behavior is actually evolutionarily adaptive in the modern world, especially given the fact that girls often seem to reward it.
If the parents or guardians of the child approve of it, I wouldn't have a problem with a 15-year-old (or a 7 year-olds) entering into a long-term financial commitment or engaging in sexual activity with adults. The parents of a child are more likely to have his or her best interests at heart than a meddlesome government that dictates at what age people can have sex and tries to force everyone in a one-size-fits-all mold. There are undoubtedly some exceptions, but those are not common enough to justify statutory rape laws.
I don't think it would be fruitful to debate the "mental development" or "emotional maturity" of teenagers because those are ill-defined terms that can be interpreted in many different ways.
According to the below chart, 15-year have better executive functions on average than 65-year-olds in spite of having an incompletely developed prefrontal cortex. Executive functions include attentional control, cognitive inhibition, inhibitory control, and other basic cognitive processes.
Last edited:
This is quite a brutal straw man, I don’t believe in ‘conventional morality’ per se, I think everyone is a product of their environment and I don’t judge people in the past for acting in ways we don’t now because obviously, if I were born then I would see things the same way as they do. How you can label me as egotistical when your idea is to mould marital law along the lines of your personal sexual urges is insane to me, the reason that practice isn’t acceptable any more isn’t because of mere circumstance. Unlike you, most of the population has a vested interest in keeping exploitation to a minimum, they don’t want this might = right scenario where hierarchical dominance reigns supreme, that’s just people who find themselves at the bottom of the pyramid we currently have (which explains why so many here think that way). So I guess you can justify to yourself why you would be happier under that kind of system, but clearly your only interest is in building a society that best serves yourself and you’re calling me egotistical? I find that highly ironic.
I agree, they are, I know you claim you would prefer a society without any laws (though you likely haven’t thought through what that would really look like) but by this logic it is implied that you would also condone baby fucking because you are such a Social Darwinist that the power imbalance is inherent anyway, so who cares? You call me a moralfag but have you not realised that fucking babies is the endpoint of moral nihilism with regard to age of consent laws? No doubt in your next post you’ll tell me I’ve unfairly strawmanned you, and that you too suddenly become a ‘moralfag’ where babies are concerned, but that was a totally fair presupposition based on what you have just proposed. If not, even most of your fellow ephebophiles are not with you on that one, so how about you start to encompass everything a society like that really entails instead of cherry picking only the points at which it personally make you hard?
Just Fucking Lol at this Autistic Edgelord Cope! I had to laugh, because I knew I’d see this if I kept scrolling, It always comes back to this in the end, and it’s always the autists who make this point. No, pubescent girls are not going to happily enter into relationships with balding 25 year old subhumans when they are barred from having relationships with boys their own age, more likely they will fear and despise you (I know you don’t care about that, but you called me egotistical earlier so again, perhaps that accusation was more than a little hypocritical?) I think this is so appealing to autists because it is the only conceivable scenario where their social inadequacy doesn’t affect their ability to reign supreme over their hypothetical gf. I’m really not trying to be mean here, no father is going to choose an autistic subhuman to be the future husband for his daughter, he’s not going to choose a non-autistic subhuman either, he isn’t going to choose a subhuman altogether, but he certainly won’t be choosing an autistic, subhuman sadist for that role, and a society that forces a girl into that situation cannot be universally justified - Though I will admit, it can be justified within your own, entirely self-serving, specifications for how you want things to be, but you really can’t make the case that everyone would be better off under a system like that - which is what most of my other detractors in this thread are trying to do.
Last edited:
Natascha Kampusch, who was abducted by Wolfgang Přiklopil at the age of 10, has publicly stated on multiple occasions that she loved him and voluntarily chose to have sex with him, even though she missed her family. The guy may not have been subhuman looking, but he was not particularly attractive either.
The politically correct term for this phenomenon rooted in female biology is Stockholm Syndrome, which is not a genuine mental illness and almost exclusively affects women. Throughout human evolutionary history, when rape and sex slavery were extremely common, it was adaptive for women to become attached to the men who enslaved them.
Women who experienced extreme stress during their captivity had a lower chance of giving birth to healthy babies, whereas the women who properly adapted to it had a higher chance of giving birth to healthy offspring.
There have been documented cases of women who were abducted by terrorists refusing to be separated from the men they were forcibly wed to.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if @MENSA_IQcel is a good troll or a genuine cuck. He posts like an IT cuck, but not to the extent that he can be banned.
This is the age of girls that I am being called a ‘moralfag’ for saying that I find it gross anyone here would be attracted to, JFL at this bunch of fiddlers with arrested development thinking this is the normal urge of most men.
So if we tally up the number of girls who were kidnapped who became attached to their kidnappers and those who despised them every day and wanted to escape, do you really mean to tell me that you expect a substantial enough number to have succumbed to Stockholm syndrome that it should override the moral implications of having made the kidnapping in the first place?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings
Do you think these girls go to bed reminiscing of the glory days now that they’re free?
You can cherrypick articles and events to make a case for pretty much anything, no matter how outlandish, I hate it when IT do it, and I hate it when incels do it as well. There is a psychological phenomenon for pretty much everything. I’m sorry, but you are seriously coping if you think a young girl is going to become attached to a hideous subhuman far older than her when she has been barred from a relationship with a boy her own age, in 9/10 cases (probably more) she will resent you, big time.
Your point earlier about executive functions is total bullshit as well, because you and I know full well that teenagers are far less capable of making informed decisions than adults, regardless of whether that’s down to lived experience or brain development (it’s likely a combination of the two) that is undeniably true, are you autistic by any chance? I’m not judging you in any way btw, it’s just your approach to this seems to be excessively technocratic in a way I usually find with autists.
I hate pedos ngl
High IQ. Are we supposed to consider it coincidental that those here who are most attracted to pubescent girls are also the ones who magically have the ability to rationalise that there are no moral implications to entering into a relationship with them? Sounds a little too convenient.
I never claimed that women or girls always become attached to their captors. But it does seem to happen in a significant number of cases and it's a phenomenon in need of more objective and dispassionate study, which is unlikely because most people are blinded with hatred towards the perpetrators of these types of crimes and also because contrary to what feminists claim, sex slavery is extremely rare in today's society. There simply aren't that many well-publicized cases to look at. The Natasha Kampusch case was the only one I could think of.
A girl is obviously much more likely to become attached to her captor if he is attractive, but that doesn't always seem to be necessary. Ariel Castro was extremely violent and cruel. Obviously, his victims are not going to miss someone who beat them into miscarrying multiple times and forced them to go without food for days on end.
Subhuman looking men of any age are repulsive to females of any age. And attractive men of any age are attractive to females of any age. A 30-year old woman would be just as disgusted at the thought of sleeping with a 30-year-old incel as a teenage girl would be, and both fantasize about sleeping with the same types of chads.
I don't think age, in general, is a big of a factor in attraction as you make it out to be. You'd be surprised how many adolescent girls would much rather sleep with Justin Bieber or any other well-known and attractive celebrity than with a boy their own age. The only reason why teenage girls are not dating attractive adult men in addition to attractive boys their own age is because it's illegal and socially frowned upon.
Last edited:
There is of course some truth in that. But I think people who are already attractive enough to qualify for a relationship are not as caught up in just physical attraction as those of us who are looking in from the outside. I wholeheartedly believe, that the vast majority of good looking males, who we both agree are attractive to females of all ages, would prefer a female partner who is developmentally on his cerebral level, (18+).
Everyone here is so cynical with regard to the role anything other than looks play in relationships (with good reason given the fact that it is the operative factor in forbidding them from entering one) that they have come to no longer consider the fact that being in a relationship with a 13 or 14 year old is not preferable to someone who has the choice between a woman they can actually hold an adult conversation with. This especially applies to autistic guys (who I’ve noticed make up the vast majority of these loli worshippers) because for them, social compatibility is an abstract concept anyway so it doesn’t register as in any way important. I personally would not be satisfied in a relationship with a girl with the mental faculty of a 14 year old (and neither would most men) regardless of how physically developed her body was. We do not want to ‘groom’ them into our mould as if we were their father, I find that a major turn off. I think that kind of thinking is an outcome from having struggled to navigate social relationships in your life as a result of autism (Which I, and most NT guys haven’t) and the inevitable desire to exercise some degree of control in an area where you have always been at a disadvantage, especially with members of the opposite sex.
Glad I’m not the only person who doesnt support pedophiles tbh I feel like a lot of people here support it for some reason
You either believe in morality or your don't, stop trying to play fucking semantic games
What do moral implications matter to someone who doesn't believe in morality?
You can't have it both ways
I'm at least a 4.5, and to a girl not exposed to Chads at a young age, I'd be a 5 and maybe more since she's attached to me in so many ways, I think you are underestimating the power of paternal attachments
You ever notice how everything makes you an "edgelord" with moral fags, dude please stop kidding yourself, pretending as if you aren't a moralfag, you are a huge moralfag, all this "I don't believe in conventional morality" stuff IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE
You can't be barred from what you don't really know exists, I mean refer back to this image (she was married off at 9 years old):
Go ahead, please tell me how its hypocritical, I don't think you even understand what that word means based on how you are using it right now lol
Unless you are asserting that merely wanting something regardless of how it affects others is egotistical and one MUST be selfless to not be an "egoist", you've been reading a bit too much bible stories there bud, for somebody who claims not to believe in conventional morality you are pretty much indoctrinated by it and can only comprehend things within its context
Justification relates to morality, my claim is that such a society would be more functional and orderly, i'll say it again, for somebody who claims not to believe in morality, you make a lot of arguments with moral implications
"Everyone" won't be better off, but MEN will be, and men are the ones who have to sacrifice for and build society, so why shouldn't society cater to them?
H
you are so full of shit.
Why is this fuckin thread 4 pages? Aint noone gonna read ALL THAT SHIT!
jailbaits(above 13) are HOT and any sane healthy man would love to bury his cock in one of them if possible
under 13 are disgusting yucky kids so only nutjobs would diddle
/thread
jailbaits(above 13) are HOT and any sane healthy man would love to bury his cock in one of them if possible
under 13 are disgusting yucky kids so only nutjobs would diddle
/thread
I think you haven’t done your homework here... lol, you have some terms mixed up, this isn’t a catch-22. ‘Conventional morality’ is a specific linguistic term, it refers to the relative established moral conventions within a society. Which is something I regard with cynicism and suspicion, especially with regard to our own 21st century paradigm.
So what I meant is: I don’t think there is an objective standard for morality that transcends the human experience (like most people do), morals come from humans and they are subject to change over time, ’conventional morality’ is a fickle and transient ideal that is best regarded with suspicion because it is always subject to change, that is completely in line with everything I said and is in no way hypocritical. I never claimed that means morals have absolutely 0 use, even chimp societies could not function without some rudimentary moral code.
Here we go again, you can use the laughing Pepe emoji all you want if it makes you feel better, but the fact of the matter is you weren’t familiar with the term ‘conventional morality’ (I’m not judging you as stupid for that, everyone comes across terms at different points in time) but since the majority of your criticisms are ad hominem attacks based on the misuse of this term there isn’t much I can answer with.You ever notice how everything makes you an "edgelord" with moral fags, dude please stop kidding yourself, pretending as if you aren't a moralfag, you are a huge moralfag, all this "I don't believe in conventional morality" stuff IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE
I will say this; if your definition of a ‘moralfag’ is literally anyone who has even a remote affiliation with any kind of moral imperative then you really can’t provide me with a reason why you’d think it’s wrong to fuck a baby, an act which every other ephebophilic diddler who has called me a ‘moralfag’ in this thread has told me they absolutely abhor. Are they moralfags too? The only people who aren’t moralfags are those among us who think that fucking a newborn baby is totally A-okay? Well that leaves just about you - and only you - my friend, so I guess you can enjoy that status of truly not being a moralfag. But first I want to hear it from your own mouth that you are cool with grown men fucking newborn babies, because otherwise your entire basis for a total lack of morality being viable has a huge hole in it, so let’s see if you address that in your response.
G
((()))
Pussy
JFL I already know what conventional morality is, which is why I said you were playing semantic games, can you not read?
You were just being disingenuous with that line of argumentation, trying to play word games instead of being straight forward and honest, there were multiple layers of semantics in your argument
Layer one - saying "conventional morality" instead of just saying "morality" period
Layer two - saying "per se" to leave even more wiggle room for your semantic BS
This is why I said, you either believe in morality or you don't
Anything else is semantic bullshit so you can play both sides and pretend as if you aren't a moralfag, if you believe in any morals period YOU ARE A MORALFAG, there are no two sides about it, morality either exists or it doesn't
Accept what you are and stop playing word games to try and be a "fence sitter" for the appearance of being "reasonable", trying to take the middle ground and be an intermediate in everything doesn't make you "reasonable" or "logical", it makes you indecisive and in a lot of cases a coward, someone who has no conviction in their beliefs so they have to try and take both sides at the same time
Last edited:
You are highly confused. I’m not sure if you’re now double backing to cover your ass but this was what my original statement about conventional morality was in response to:
You:
’You do realize that you likely only think that because you were raised to think that right?
...
Humans just do whatever is convenient for them at the time, and then charge the people of the past as "morally reprehensible", its so damn egotistical’
Me:
’This is quite a brutal strawman, I don’t believe in ‘conventional morality’ per se, I think everyone is a product of their environment and I don’t judge people in the past for acting in ways we don’t now because obviously, if I were born then I would see things the same way as they do‘
You strawmanned me and labelled me as egotistical by presuming that I would charge people in the past as “morally reprehensible” and I called you out by responding that: “I DON’T judge people from the past as reprehensible Because I don’t believe in conventional morality. That statement does not contradict the proceeding statements I made about other epistemological interpretations of morality, and you really don’t know what conventional morality is if you claim that it does:
I then went on to make an entirely different point about how without adherence to any form of morality (not just the conventional, which is an entirely different concept) then you can’t rightfully condemn fucking a newborn baby, a charge you have continued to hide from all this time later despite having accused ME of intellectual cowardice in the interim. So stop hiding, and say that you are cool with it, or it is you who is the coward rather than me - because I was not providing cover for my later statements by stating that I refute conventional morality, I was responding to a prior charge you labelled at me about judging those in the past as morally reprehensible. JFL, as if I care about whether you consider me a ‘moralfag’ or not, It’s hilarious to me you think hiding my insecurity about potentially being considered a moralfag is so important to me, that genuinely makes me laugh.
Last edited:
Yep, you're 100% right. Even if the edgiest on here can't escape moralist thinking. Thus it's all pointless. It's all a game of "well what I want/am willing to do is right. "
Even the ones who go around calling everyone moralfags.
Projection
"I'm doing it and everyone else is doing it too whether they say so or not, so I don't have to feel bad about doing it"
Well even you haven't been brave enough to openly state in writing. Tag everyone that insulted moralfags in this thread and ask them that question.
Maybe it's true for you, but not even many of your followers.
Fucking jb's should be legal for autists then. Only bluepillers and chads want "fully developed" foids. Bluepillers don't know about them riding the cock carousel, and their inability to pair bond, and chads pick them because they pair bond with them automatically, so they don't have to risk getting in trouble by fucking jb's to get a foid to pair bond with them, of course a lot still do it anyway.
They might not be ok with a very balding guy, but only cuck dads would want their daughters to be with player chads who will pump and dump them. Fathers should only want their daughters with their looksmatches. Even jordan peterson agrees letting your daughter get fucked by chads is the ultimate cuck.
I wouldn’t do it, but I hope foids get molested as kids
If you’re going to envisage a world where you’re allowed to be in a relationship with jbs, because of the carousel, then why not just go all the way make it one where no one has premarital sex and people get married in their early 20s like in the ‘40s?
I know life is unfair for autists but you really can’t expect society to make special rules for them, then you are no better than third wave feminists who think society should have special rules for women due to their inherent disadvantages.
Also, pair bonding isn’t some magic button that can make a girl love an unattractive guy forever if he happens to be the first guy to fuck her. She will still lust after Chads who exponentially mog him if she comes into contact with them.
Perhaps, but I don’t think many fathers want their daughter to marry an autist unless perhaps she is autistic herself. Parents judge the social ability of their daughter’s partner pretty harshly, a lot of NT guys don’t make the cut.
That would be too restrictive and impossible to control these days.
All the rules should be the same for everyone, but foids already get special rules in these cucked times so there's nothing wrong with autists taking advantage of cucked society as well.
Getting a foid who is semi-pair bonded to you is better than having no foid at all.
If he's a high functioning autist most parents will think he's just shy, which is a good thing for a lot of them because they associate that with being polite and humble.
Actually I've noticed a lot of people as of recently on this forum rejecting morality as a whole, they are changing, we all start off as moralfags, I'd bet I was even a bigger moralfag than most people on this site
I honestly dont care what any of you say. 12 and up is free game in my forest
If I put a poll asking ascribing a hypothetical like the one mentioned in this thread and asking if they were okay with it do you think they would vote yes in the poll?
It's one thing when it's all hypothetical/theoretical about morality vs. when you're presented with the most extreme examples you can find and prescribe ZERO moral judgement on them on the record. But surely you can agree it's hypocritical to call someone a moralfag when you just have a different set of moral values you ascribe to and disagree with that specific person's moral framework correct?
Even if morality is subjective (at least from a non-religious standpoint) very many have some feelings and capacity for empathy. This is why many moral values have remained consistent or reappeared over many millennia.
Last edited:
True, and even though love isn't real, very many have feelings and a capacity to have strong emotional attachments, etc, etc
Isn't the entire point of the black pill to be aware of these limitations and/or defects that we have and act against them when they aren't in our interest
If the core argument is "I feel this way so it matters and I won't try to resist this feeling"
Then isn't that a rationalization anybody can use, including blue pillers
Can we really tell a guy not to betabuxx or a literal cuck to not cuck himself at that point if it all comes down to what you feel and no matter the logic you won't defy your feelings?
That's what confuses me about a lot of "black pillers", they want to be selectively black pilled, why don't you apply that selective thinking to all the things you think other people should be black pilled on, you should give blue pillers a pass too by that logic, everybody gets a pass, guys who believe in PUA BS, guys who believe in "true love", guys who get married multiple times from divorce to divorce, etc, etc, they should all get a pass because they are influenced by feelings and have a capacity to feel
I think the entire point of being black pilled is to defy these limitations, else why even be black pilled, you might as well go full blue pill and stop kidding yourself, we can't just give ourselves special passes for when our emotions are "valid enough" to not apply the black pill to it, because then everyone should be able to do that for their specific "defect" or "limitation"
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
