Srs question: "Is rape objectively wrong?"

[IncelPolitik]

Don't post low effort replies like "it isn't" or "because it makes me feel good".

Srs question. Present strong philosophical case. My opinion is beginning to change from it's immoral to it's-illegal-but-not-irrefutably-immoral.

Present your arguments, boys.

 

[DirtyCurryCell]

Yes.
It is objectively wrong.

Having drunk sex and regretting it in the morning isn't rape.

 

[PoodankMcGee]

I dont really buy into objective morality tbh. If you just rape some random girl on the street, I would say that's wrong. But ultimately it comes down to situation and context. If the cunt is an adulterer for example I see no problem.

 

[RedIce]

Imo, it all comes down to whether you wish the same thing upon yourself. If you don't, then don't do it. It's the golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated, we as incels should know that better than anyone else due to our negative experiences with people.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

because women want rape

 

[Deleted member 18193]

It's impossible to answer that question logically; heck, even a clear philosophical argument is not going to answer it.

But in general, I guess yeah it's wrong. if you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to others.

 

[Deleted member 25525]

Well of course its objectively wrong. But at this point the foids that I desire the most (and foids in general) hate me for my looks and race, and the only way I could ever fuck one would be through rape. Not that I would do it, however. No point going to prison for that.

 

[happiless]

Nothing is objectively true. Nothing is objectively wrong

 

[Cyrrow]

Define objectively for low iqcels.

 

[Deleted member 20207]

“Right” and “wrong” are not objective concepts, so the question is nonsensical. Whether rape should be legal or not is a matter of whose self-interest society should cater for. An unattractive man might want to force females to have sex with him with the use of his natural force, but neither females or genetically superior men, or the family members of the raped female, would want genetically inferior men to spread their genes. The self-interest of the majority of the people is therefore that rape should be illegal, and this also makes evolutionary sense, since rape being illegal makes it harder for genetically inferior men to impregnate females.

 

[CrackingYs]

It depends on whether you use the female regret definition of rape, or actual rape which very, very, very rarely ever happens. Probably 99% or more of rape accusations is just females changing their mind after fucking a normie or a Chadlite and not wanting to ruin her chances of fucking the TrueChad she really desires.

 

[Deleted member 19079]

moral questions cant be answered objectively

 

[ilieknothing]

It's not something I could ever do. Foids do like rape though, they want the whole alpha experience with Chad.

 

[TheSecondComing]

it not really nice to infringe on someone else like that but i can’t tell you it’s absolutely wrong

 

[Lame Dude]

Kohlberg's model of moral development
I think of it as physical/mental torture.

 

[HyperVersager_4EVER]

I think of it as physical/mental torture.

I am on a similar boat. Essential you are inflicting physical/mental harm to another being. If you were to consider this okay, what can you say against a gay man wanting to ram your ass dry? Or some stranger on the street physically assaulting you? Or people mocking and insulting you? You get my point I believe OP. As long as you believe in some interpretation of the concept of morality, it doesn't really fit in well.

 

[TheJoker]

Many structures and morality theories in life are nothing but concepts. Morality in itself meets the criteria for a philosophical religion. Good and evil do not exist in objective reality. Good is considered for the mutual benefit, and evil is considered chaos amongst the order of law. We can say there are morals in subjective reality, but good and evil does not exist in the animal kingdom. The weakest species will be killed and the strongest of the species which adapts, will thrive.

Could rape be considered good? Here is my case why it is considered good (because we have to ask these questions) I do not condone rape of its kind but here is the case for yes. Rape will enable the user to have sex. 50% of women who experience rape orgasm. We are essentially living in the animal kingdom, no matter how much you dress up an ape, shave him, put him in a suit and tell him what is good and bad, there is no basis for morals other than mutually agreed upon sets of values. In some civilisations the act of murder/rape was considered a good thing.

So using these theories, we could replace good and evil with order and chaos. Order is truth such as an inferior organism being killed by a superior organism. Chaos is anything which goes against the established order. Rape is the re-asserting of your order, when that order does not help you assert your will. For an incel to rape, would be a response to an inferior environment, which does not allow your organism to assert its dominance and establish your will amongst the universe.

That being said - should we rape? The law is there to stop you from being an ape, and to establish a punishment/deter you from it. I personally think it is wrong to rape, but there is nothing in morality to stop someone from doing it.

Some have said if we do not believe in morality, than all harm done to incels is nothing but truth. I agree with this completely. It is truth. Any response to that truth is truth also.

 

[Shin no Shi]

Don't post low effort replies like "it isn't" or "because it makes me feel good".

Srs question. Present strong philosophical case. My opinion is beginning to change from it's immoral to it's-illegal-but-not-irrefutably-immoral.

Present your arguments, boys.

Rape isn't objectively wrong nor is it good either, in my opinion rape is just the closeted frustration of wanting to fuck. Women get the same tendencies i.e. Riley Reid explaining that she lost her virginity through raping a kid, thus only telling me that it is nothing but a frustrating response/desire that a single person can't control the idea of. To me Rape is like a homeless man stealing a store, they only want to survive, so they would do anything to get it, though what I stated can be dismantled by saying that food is necessary but sex isn't, but then if that's the case surviving off food and doing anything for it, would be in the same stance of trying to fuck and doing anything to get it. It's the same urge response, so to tell a person that it's fine for them to go without sex, is the exact same as telling a man to go without food, because he's homeless.

They both can figure out ways to overcome it via one trying to pay for an escort or masturbate, whilst the other finds a job or goes seek a food shelter, but when those aspects aren't there, then what would be the next option, thus stealing and rape are likely to occur.

Now what I want to tangle on is murder and how we could dissect what a serial killer does to get what he/she wants, what it is that causes them to go on a murder spree. Is it the love of the kill, possibly and there is meaning to it for them, as for art doesn't stay in just one avenue but across all avenues, so they see the death as nothing but an exciting piece of mozart. In my eyes, they shouldn't regret what they do but do question their narrative and see an alternative in the sense of cause and effect. If they want force their most urgent desires, then they are allowed to do so but should also be aware of the cause and effect of what they are doing, because usually those who do actions deemed "bad" end up feeling guilty for it and don't know why they did it, like a coomer getting PNC, to which I say don't regret your actions, you can simply learn from them sure but it was what you sought for so better to take up to it then swallow in misery.

and yes FBI suck my balls

 

[Lame Dude]

Many structures and morality theories in life are nothing but concepts. Morality in itself meets the criteria for a philosophical religion. Good and evil do not exist in objective reality. Good is considered for the mutual benefit, and evil is considered chaos amongst the order of law. We can say there are morals in subjective reality, but good and evil does not exist in the animal kingdom. The weakest species will be killed and the strongest of the species which adapts, will thrive.

I see morality as an exchange of good will, for the mutual benefit of individuals in a tribe. You dont owe morality to anyone, if the other person is playing dirty, by all means, play dirty. (Excluding guilt by association)

I would rather treat a person the best I can the first time I meet them, after that, I will just mirror how they treat me.

 

[TheJoker]

Rape isn't objectively wrong nor is it good either, in my opinion rape is just the closeted frustration of wanting to fuck. Women get the same tendencies i.e. Riley Reid explaining that she lost her virginity through raping a kid, thus only telling me that it is nothing but a frustrating response/desire that a single person can't control the idea of. To me Rape is like a homeless man stealing a store, they only want to survive, so they would do anything to get it, though what I stated can be dismantled by saying that food is necessary but sex isn't, but then if that's the case surviving off food and doing anything for it, would be in the same stance of trying to fuck and doing anything to get it. It's the same urge response, so to tell a person that it's fine for them to go without sex, is the exact same as telling a man to go without food, because he's homeless.

They both can figure out ways to overcome it via one trying to pay for an escort or masturbate, whilst the other finds a job or goes seek a food shelter, but when those aspects aren't there, then what would be the next option, thus stealing and rape are likely to occur.

Now what I want to tangle on is murder and how we could dissect what a serial killer does to get what he/she wants, what it is that causes them to go on a murder spree. Is it the love of the kill, possibly and there is meaning to it for them, as for art doesn't stay in just one avenue but across all avenues, so they see the death as nothing but an exciting piece of mozart. In my eyes, they shouldn't regret what they do but do question their narrative and see an alternative in the sense of cause and effect. If they want force their most urgent desires, then they are allowed to do so but should also be aware of the cause and effect of what they are doing, because usually those who do actions deemed "bad" end up feeling guilty for it and don't know why they did it, like a coomer getting PNC, to which I say don't regret your actions, you can simply learn from them sure but it was what you sought for so better to take up to it then swallow in misery.

and yes FBI suck my balls

People only feel empathy and guilt, because they have been cultured into a society which says these actions are wrong. If you're applying values such as 'good and evil' than you're establishing a biased view of morality already, since none can really exist. For example, a snake would not feel guilt for eating chickens, he does what he does to survive. A caveman would not feel guilt for raping a woman, he is asserting his dominance in a animalistic world, and is thus rewarded for his survival value.

 

[Shin no Shi]

People only feel empathy and guilt, because they have been cultured into a society which says these actions are wrong. For example, a snake would not feel guilt for eating chickens, he does what he does to survive.

exactly, so where is the law to apprehend that snake from eating a chicken. I can understand if the chicken and snake were friends but at the end of the day, the snake and the chicken will both do anything to survive/get what they want, even if it meant killing each other. Why do you think dogs and cats eat the faces of their dead owners, when they're trapped inside the house, where's the bond between them gone to.

 

[TheJoker]

exactly, so where is the law to apprehend that snake from eating a chicken. I can understand if the chicken and snake were friends but at the end of the day, the snake and the chicken will both do anything to survive/get what they want, even if it meant killing each other. Why do you think dogs and cats eat the faces of their dead owners, when they're trapped inside the house, where's the bond between them gone to.

Yes agreed. My take is the law is there to protect the physically/mentally weak from harm. Thus we don't have a crazy world that is like the purge. Society is more functional with the religion of morals, but that doesn't mean one has to follow it.

''Your body doesn't care about your morals, it wants to survive.''

When the chips are down, these civilised people will eat each other, you will see.

 

[Shin no Shi]

Yes agreed. My take is the law is there to protect the physically/mentally weak from harm. Thus we don't have a crazy world that is like the purge. Society is more functional with the religion of morals, but that doesn't mean one has to follow it.

''Your body doesn't care about your morals, it wants to survive.''

When the chips are down, these civilised people will eat each other, you will see.

I would say survival is just another desire, because when thinking about it further. Everyting in life is essentially a desire and connecting this with the big bang only suggests to me that the world coming to be to experience everything it is right now is a desire (which proves something most people won't even agree with it imo). Yet these are the same idiots who say desire is wrong or in the spiritualist sense, desire is nothing but sin, when in actuality desire is what got you everything, without desire you are just nothing but a empty shell with no desire. Evolution is a desire to survive and become something anew. Building civilisation is a desire for a community to thrive in.

The only time I see desires being a problem is when you let them control you even past being satisfied or the first experience, because at that point you're only being controlled by your desire and not filling something you needed, which explains extreme addicts.

 

[TheJoker]

I would say survival is just another desire, because when thinking about it further. Everyting in life is essentially a desire and connecting this with the big bang only suggests to me that the world coming to be to experience everything it is right now is a desire (which proves something most people won't even agree with it imo). Yet these are the same idiots who say desire is wrong or in the spiritualist sense, desire is nothing but sin, when in actuality desire is what got you everything, without desire you are just nothing but a empty shell with no desire. Evolution is a desire to survive and become something anew. Building civilisation is a desire for a community to thrive in.

The only time I see desires being a problem is when you let them control you even past being satisfied or the first experience, because at that point you're only being controlled by your desire and not filling something you needed, which explains extreme addicts.

Yeah I agree with you completely - I would add that all of our desires come from the roots of our survival mechanism, and that mechanism can be overrided through re-defining stimulus, sensation and even ideology. For example - Jihads blow themselves up in order to reach heaven. Even through they are killing themselves, they do it for survival in the next realm. I think survival is pretty dominant in our species over other desires. A question could be how about a mother who drowns in order to ensure the survival of her offspring? For me this isn't a bodily response its more of a ideological one, but the need to survival is the most dominant, its just easily manipulated. You just need to look at Maslow's hierachy of needs, without shelter and security we cannot rise up the hierarchy towards self actualisation.

 

[NormScum]

Nothing is objectively wrong. All moral statements require axiomatical presuppositions that can't be confirmed

 

[BITG]

Nothing is objectively true. Nothing is objectively wrong

This. OP, it depends by what standards you are going by. By today’s society’s standards it is wrong, but back in the hunter gatherer days when it was the law of the jungle, then no, it wasn’t wrong. Securing your genetics was all that mattered, and if a beta had to take a woman by force, he would.

Nothing is objectively wrong. All moral statements require axiomatical presuppositions that can't be confirmed

 

[undergroundcel]

if you still care about right/wrong it is too late for you. the question is whether you can get away with it or not

 

[PPEcel]

What would a fed say

 

[IncelPolitik]

if you still care about right/wrong it is too late for you. the question is whether you can get away with it or not

It's over for empathCels, we can't compete with normie sociopathic nature.