Rebuttal to Classic & Oft-Touted argument: "there were men in every generation who did not reproduce, why should our generation expect any different?"

[IncelPolitik]

I apologize in advance if it irks some brothercels that I posted this in tweet-thread form.

What are your thoughts on this argument? Does it appeal to you?

(1/4)

(2/4)

(3/4)

(4/4)

Btw, I have a YouTube channel where I plan on discussing the junction of inceldom, male sexuality, and political philosophy if you want to subscribe: --> @MaleSexPolitics

 

[SchrodingersDick]

What do u mean by female sexual morality?

also the state doesn’t need to meddle with every detail of the sexual market/provide prostitutes/enforce monogamy. Do away with the 19th amendment, women’s rights to work, social media, and makeup, and things will take an enormous turn for the better. Women’s financial independence breeds gene based sexual selection (as the only other sexual currency left is sperm quality) and their beautification tactics only make them more hypergamous, and add on top of that instant access to millions of men on a dating app and u have the perfect recipe for a polygynous dystopia. Besides Jfl if you think the state will ever recognize women/eggs as a commodity/resource. your utopia state could never exist. It’s just such a huge affront to most people’s world views and they would never accept such a thing. Also even incel normies wouldn’t be on board. Incel normies are like in that communist quote. They feel like temporarily embarrassed chads.

 

[Arthur Copenhauer]

Decent post, but you could make the best, most infallible argument, but if its conclusion is that ugly men should have sex, the entire argument will be thrown out the window. You are assuming that the people you are trying to convince are rational, and will engage intellectually with your ideas. In reality, all people will always be ruled by their primitive animalistic subconscious.

You use other examples such as healthcare, food, and housing, but they only support those things out of narcissism. They know that they may need those things one day, but if they have had sex, they will never feel insecure in their ability to have more, and therefore their "empathy" ends where the issue becomes something that either: a) doesn't affect them, or b) they can't virtue-signal about.

 

[IncelPolitik]

Decent post, but you could make the best, most infallible argument, but if its conclusion is that ugly men should have sex, the entire argument will be thrown out the window. You are assuming that the people you are trying to convince are rational, and will engage intellectually with your ideas. In reality, all people will always be ruled by their primitive animalistic subconscious.

You use other examples such as healthcare, food, and housing, but they only support those things out of narcissism. They know that they may need those things one day, but if they have had sex, they will never feel insecure in their ability to have more, and therefore their "empathy" ends where the issue becomes something that either: a) doesn't affect them, or b) they can't virtue-signal about.

Before I address your rebuttal allow me to be in total awe and appreciation of your username.

"Arthur COPEnhauer." Just brilliant.

 

[Quarantined]

Decent post, but you could make the best, most infallible argument, but if its conclusion is that ugly men should have sex, the entire argument will be thrown out the window. You are assuming that the people you are trying to convince are rational, and will engage intellectually with your ideas. In reality, all people will always be ruled by their primitive animalistic subconscious.

You use other examples such as healthcare, food, and housing, but they only support those things out of narcissism. They know that they may need those things one day, but if they have had sex, they will never feel insecure in their ability to have more, and therefore their "empathy" ends where the issue becomes something that either: a) doesn't affect them, or b) they can't virtue-signal about.

It's not just you: New data shows more than half of young people in America don't have a romantic partner

Just over half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 - 51 percent of them - said they do not have a steady romantic partner.

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[IncelPolitik]

30/0 is our 13/50

 

[Deleted member 21230]

"there were men in every generation who were sacrificed to the gods, why should our generation expect any different?"

 

[IncelPolitik]

"there were men in every generation who were sacrificed to the gods, why should our generation expect any different?"

But that's an argument with an entirely different and absurd premise. If you start with an absurd premise, of course, you're going to end with an absurd and false conclusion.

The need/desire to have s*x is far more crucial/essential to well-being and functioning than sacrificing human beings. lol.

 

[Deleted member 21230]

But that's an argument with an entirely different and absurd premise. If you start with an absurd premise, of you're going to end with an absurd and false conclusion.

The need/desire to have s*x is far more crucial/essential to well-being and functioning than sacrificing human beings. lol.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I was agreeing with you and saying that just like how we went over sacrificing people we should also go over inceldom

I was just mocking the normie sentence honestly, I know it's an absurde premise but the point still remains

 

[undergroundcel]

From a historical perspective the argument is null anyway (even with the strawman). Obviously female hypergamy and licentiousness were strongly discouraged with traditional morality, but women often married out of economic necessity rather than romantically. What this means is that it was in your control to be able to get a wife and have children, whereas now you are locked behind genetics

 

[FinnCel]

Intergalactic IQ with that homelessness comparison

If CuckTears tell us "you don't die from not having sex", then we can tell them "you don't die from not having a home"

 

[randomguy1235]

What do u mean by female sexual morality?

also the state doesn’t need to meddle with every detail of the sexual market/provide prostitutes/enforce monogamy. Do away with the 19th amendment, women’s rights to work, social media, and makeup, and things will take an enormous turn for the better. Women’s financial independence breeds gene based sexual selection (as the only other sexual currency left is sperm quality) and their beautification tactics only make them more hypergamous, and add on top of that instant access to millions of men on a dating app and u have the perfect recipe for a polygynous dystopia. Besides Jfl if you think the state will ever recognize women/eggs as a commodity/resource. your utopia state could never exist. It’s just such a huge affront to most people’s world views and they would never accept such a thing. Also even incel normies wouldn’t be on board. Incel normies are like in that communist quote. They feel like temporarily embarrassed chads.

Decent post, but you could make the best, most infallible argument, but if its conclusion is that ugly men should have sex, the entire argument will be thrown out the window. You are assuming that the people you are trying to convince are rational, and will engage intellectually with your ideas. In reality, all people will always be ruled by their primitive animalistic subconscious.

You use other examples such as healthcare, food, and housing, but they only support those things out of narcissism. They know that they may need those things one day, but if they have had sex, they will never feel insecure in their ability to have more, and therefore their "empathy" ends where the issue becomes something that either: a) doesn't affect them, or b) they can't virtue-signal about.

 

[Deleted member 27159]

The entire argument of if x was in all generation what so different about this one is extremely flawed. It can be applied on just about everything. This means that you will have to justify human sacrifices, arranged marriages, monarchy etc. Overall just an incredibly stupid argument

Intergalactic IQ with that homelessness comparison

If CuckTears tell us "you don't die from not having sex", then we can tell them "you don't die from not having a home"

Knowing IT they will just seethe and just insult us as they cannot argue properly
The entire argument of if x was in all generation what so different about this one is extremely flawed. It can be applied on just about everything. This means that you will have to justify human sacrifices, arranged marriages, monarchy etc. Overall just an incredibly stupid argument