Blackpill Rape is not disgusting and is the most heterosexual thing ever!

[pedrolopezwasright]

Just because one thing is immoral because of it being disgusting doesn't mean another thing cannot be immoral because it lacks consent. They are not exclusive and morals are not that linear.

Morals are linear unless you want to fully refute them as non-existent, but here you are supposedly argue for their existence by descriptively referring to them. Also I quite don't understand the wording my logic was that, one thing is immoral because its disgusting and obviously not because it does lack consent, other thing is moral because it is not disgusting, lack or not lack of consent will never refute its logical morality since its not disgusting. Especially considering that lack of free will of a woman is comparable to animal due to imperative of hypergamy such comparison can be made, therefore zoophilia > bad because disgusting not because lack consent, rape > good because is not disgusting. The only logic which can be applied to lower being "woman" is this type of logic, since any higher order reasoning involve fully developed free will

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

Morals are linear unless you want to fully refute them as non-existent, but here you are supposedly argue for their existence by descriptively referring to them. Also I quite don't understand the wording my logic was that, one thing is immoral because its disgusting and obviously not because it does lack consent, other thing is moral because it is not disgusting, lack or not lack of consent will never refute its logical morality since its not disgusting. Especially considering that lack of free will of a woman is comparable to animal due to imperative of hypergamy such comparison can be made, therefore zoophilia > bad because disgusting not because lack consent, rape > good because is not disgusting. The only logic which can be applied to lower being "woman" is this type of logic, since any higher order reasoning involve fully developed free will

Any other application of morals is inherently a religious dogma/spiritual dogma/etc. Morals do not make sense if they are made up, morals make sense only if they can be logically deduced, otherwise they merely lead to chaos. (eg. modern society where application of morals is not deduced from mere logic)

 

[Chaos;BrutaLr2]

Gc in terms of functional Gc has very strong correlation with Gf. Accumulated knowledge and knowledge which is actively used are different things and Its foolish to doubt the role of Gf in for example fixing a broken PC (novel problem/Gc/Gf are being actively used). Gc does involve functional knowledge:the ability to use one’s accumulated skills, varieties of knowledge, and experience to make informed decisions. Which is built functionally on Gf even if isn't 1:1 correlated

Yeah, I assumed output of Gc is bottlenecked by Gf, but crystallized knowledge is usually measured to avoid this bottleneck. According to here "One of two major subfactors of general intelligence, it represents the accumulation of knowledge over the life span of the individual and may be measured by tests in areas such as vocabulary, general information, and achievement (cf. fluid intelligence)." Gc is about knowledge not the output of knowledge, hence way measurements are based on things like vocab and general information rather than actively using the information. There isn't really a point in separating crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence if one variable if crystallized intelligence measured output and ability to use knowledge.

 

[Chaos;BrutaLr2]

Morals are linear unless you want to fully refute them as non-existent, but here you are supposedly argue for their existence by descriptively referring to them. Also I quite don't understand the wording my logic was that, one thing is immoral because its disgusting and obviously not because it does lack consent, other thing is moral because it is not disgusting, lack or not lack of consent will never refute its logical morality since its not disgusting. Especially considering that lack of free will of a woman is comparable to animal due to imperative of hypergamy such comparison can be made, therefore zoophilia > bad because disgusting not because lack consent, rape > good because is not disgusting. The only logic which can be applied to lower being "woman" is this type of logic, since any higher order reasoning involve fully developed free will

Most people would be disgusted by rape if they saw it, in fact even if a foid did give consent to a trucel most people would still be disgusted. Therefore the same logic applied to zoophilia can also be applied to rape. Also, considering how much foids hate sub5s, the 'suffering' of the foid would likely be greater than the pleasure of the trucel. Even if a trucel did have sex with a foid that consented, most people would be disgusted. Also free will does not exist, even for us incels. Every biological organim is a slave to their natural body; why else would we care so much about sex, lonliness, and social status? It's because we are biologically wired to. The concept of true free will is laughable in a deterministic world.

 

[Caichan]

rape isn't disgusting

fuck u

 

[Caichan]

fuck u

I will literally kill this kid

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

Most people would be disgusted by rape if they saw it, in fact even if a foid did give consent to a trucel most people would still be disgusted. Therefore the same logic applied to zoophilia can also be applied to rape. Also, considering how much foids hate sub5s, the 'suffering' of the foid would likely be greater than the pleasure of the trucel. Even if a trucel did have sex with a foid that consented, most people would be disgusted. Also free will does not exist, even for us incels. Every biological organim is a slave to their natural body; why else would we care so much about sex, lonliness, and social status? It's because we are biologically wired to. The concept of true free will is laughable in a deterministic world.

JFL you just proved consent doesn't matter. And people are not disgusted by rape, its a lie, they are faking disgusted by the moral concept of "lack of consent". Nobody cares about this shit, only some WOKE faggots think rape looks much different from how normal sex should look

 

[Chaos;BrutaLr2]

JFL you just proved consent doesn't matter. And people are not disgusted by rape, its a lie, they are faking disgusted by the moral concept of "lack of consent". Nobody cares about this shit, only some WOKE faggots think rape looks much different from how normal sex should look

Fair, it's been a good conversation.

 

[centrelllje8]

Many people claim that rape being immoral and disgusting is that it lacks consent, but according to this logic zoophilia can be justified as moral if animals were able to give consent. I think i don't have to explain that it is absurd, and that zoophilia is inherently subhuman and disgusting thing to do, no matter the ability of animal to consent, its still extremely disgusting thing no matter what. Now with rape, you are having sex with woman and as you can see consent doesn't make anything moral or not discusting, therefore people who deny rape are closed homos.

@Flagellum_Dei

Truth

 

[GeneticDysfunction]

The greycels are iqmogging longtime users now jfl.

 

[FKP]

another IT bait

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

another IT bait

Don't worry, its not