Blackpill The dogpill starts from a fundamental epistemological fallacy.

[Moroccancel]

The dogpill is a blackpilled theory that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs or other Canids over sex with incels. Some more extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads.

1. Foids would rather have sex with dogs than with incels.
2. Foids would have sex with dogs before chads.

Logical argumentation:

1. There is no evidence that foids choose a dog over an incel or a Chad by reason of its inherent physical characteristics but that the woman prefers the dog as a sexual object over any other man.

The blackpill is a philosophy that argues that physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in determining men's dating success,

2. As the blackpill revolves around men's dating success, it cannot be assumed that the dogpill is a blackpill because either the woman uses the dog as a sexual object or she uses a human (Chad) as a sexual object.

3. Therefore, speaking of the dogpill as blackpill is a contradiction in the assumptions of: a) definition, b) technicality and c) statistical evidence.

 

[The Wolf]

good argumentation !

wtf is this?

 

[The Wolf]

(zoomed in your PFP)

 

[Moroccancel]

good argumentation !


View attachment 794290 wtf is this?

Do not ask.

 

[nice_try]

How many threads on the same topic do you want to create, idiot?

Some women have sexual fantasies and sexual intimacy with dogs. End of story.
Many news articles prove that.
Dildos shaped like dog penises exist.

We don't have to discuss blackpill facts all over again, just because MODS let a couple of bluepilled cucks in here

 

[The Wolf]

Do not ask.

??? I regret asking, I think I can guess

Do you dislike cats?

 

[Him]

(zoomed in your PFP)

 

[Moroccancel]

Some women have sexual fantasies and sexual intimacy with dogs. End of story.

Some, some, some, some. Brutal somepill. Absolutely no argument was refuted.

Many news articles prove that.
Dildos shaped like dog penises

Lots of pictures of incel getting laid. Lots of evidence of married manlets, lots of evidence of lots of things and the blackpill is not reeling from this evidence. What you and other dogpill theorists do is create sexual and statistical deviance and elevate it to the category of generality, which is an epistemological fallacy.

We don't have to discuss blackpill facts all over again, just because MODS let a couple of bluepilled cucks in here

Yes, you have to discuss it because you yourself are not aware of a consistent definition of what blackpill is, just subjectivist lubrication.

 

[BataviaCel]

The dogpill is a blackpilled theory that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs or other Canids over sex with incels.

1. Some foids would rather have sex with dogs than with incels, no foids would want to have sex with incels.

There is no evidence that foids choose a dog over an incel or a Chad by reason of its inherent physical characteristics but that the woman prefers the dog as a sexual object over any other man.

One can argue that the characteristics of a canine is "in line" with human beauty standard (prominent skull shape & bright colored eyes). So, foids want dogs as sex objects because they look pleasing.

The blackpill is a philosophy that argues that physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in determining men's dating success.

2. As the blackpill revolves around men's dating success, it cannot be assumed that the dogpill is a blackpill because either the woman uses the dog as a sexual object or she uses a human (Chad) as a sexual object.

Wouldn't the fact that some women would rather pleasure herself with a dog than a human qualify as a blackpill? I mean, think about it, youre so worthless, that some foids would rather spend time with dogs over you.

 

[fang]

To me it just seems like anti-White libel from coping shitskins—they don't have anything else to poke at because Whites really like their pets

 

[nice_try]

Some, some, some, some. Brutal somepill. Absolutely no argument was refuted.

Facts don't need arguments.
Some women have sexual fantasies or intimacy with dogs. That's just a fact, it doesn't need "arguments".

Lots of pictures of incel getting laid.

Wrong. The sentence doesn't even make sense. If you are getting laid, you aren't incel. So what you#re saying can't even exist.

Lots of evidence of married manlets, lots of evidence of lots of things and the blackpill is not reeling from this evidence.

You clearly don't understand the blackpill.
The blackpill never said that manlets can't be married.

What you and other dogpill theorists do is create sexual and statistical deviance and elevate it to the category of generality, which is an epistemological fallacy.

We acknowledge the fact that some women have sexual fantasies and/or intimacy with dogs. Nobody is "elevating it to the category of generality".

Yes, you have to discuss it because you yourself are not aware of a consistent definition of what blackpill is, just subjectivist lubrication.

Oh, I'm very aware. Have been dealing with that shit for quite a couple of years now.

 

[Moroccancel]

Facts don't need arguments

Arguments are needed if you want to set the dogpill as a blackpill. Because the definitions are contradictory and absurd. Another fact is that men have prostate stimulation, therefore, create a gaypill based on this subjectivist interpretation that you have.

Wrong. The sentence doesn't even make sense. If you are getting laid, you aren't incel. So what you#re saying can't even exist.

It does make sense because the frame of reference based on which an incel is defined within the blackpill is based on its SMV and there is no other meter in this regard. A sexhaver with an escort would no longer be an incel due to this rule of thumb, and it is not. Thus, the blackpill remains unchanged in the face of statistical deviations.

You clearly don't understand the blackpill.
The blackpill never said that manlets can't be married.

No, you're the one with definition problems. The blackpill is a statistical model, therefore any statistical deviation is possible. However, you want to create a pill from a sexual and statistical deviation.

We acknowledge the fact that some women have sexual fantasies and/or intimacy with dogs. Nobody is "elevating it to the category of generality".

So it cannot be a pill and it does not obey its own general definition, as can be read under the consensus that "foids prefer dogs to incels or the entire male gender"

Oh, I'm very aware. Have been dealing with that shit for quite a couple of years now.

It does not seem.

 

[Moroccancel]

1. Some foids would rather have sex with dogs than with incels, no foids would want to have sex with incels.

Based on what evidence? Exactly, none. It's like saying that a foid would have sex with a dog rather than a burning tungsten rod. Over for tugstencels. Nonsense. There is no correlation that proves this nor the most absurd interpretation that foids, under conditions of normal heterosexuality, prefer a dog over a Chad. This would imply that these foids would prefer dogs over humans.

It does make sense because the frame of reference based on which an incel is defined within the blackpill is based on its SMV and there is no other meter in this regard. A sexhaver with an escort would no longer be an incel due to this rule of thumb, and it is not. Thus, the blackpill remains unchanged in the face of statistical deviations.

It would be the other way around. A sexual deviation does not create a pill, but a deviation from the rule. A lesbian is not a blackpill, nor is a woman who prefers a dildo to being in a relationship.

Wouldn't the fact that some women would rather pleasure herself with a dog than a human qualify as a blackpill? I mean, think about it, youre so worthless, that foids would rather spend time with dogs over you.

It would also apply to a Chad along the same line of argument, as the lesbians would choose foids over a 10/10 SMV'd Chad.

 

[BataviaCel]

1. Some foids would rather have sex with dogs than with incels, no foids would want to have sex with incels.

Based on what evidence? Exactly, none. It's like saying that a foid would have sex with a dog rather than a burning tungsten rod. Over for tugstencels. Nonsense. There is no correlation that proves this nor the most absurd interpretation that foids, under conditions of normal heterosexuality, prefer a dog over a Chad. This would imply that these foids would prefer dogs over humans.

View: https://youtu.be/iKXYgtxAmnc

Zooville Forum

Zoophilia and Bestiality Community

www.zoovilleforum.net

Incels due to looking undesirable are unable to get sex (of course there are outliers). So, 99% of incels are undesirable, and if you ask any of these fuckers, they will glady take a canine cock up their ass than fuck an incel. That's why i said "some", not "majority". It is undeniable the reason why these foids love bestiality is because they find dogs' looks pleasing.

Wouldn't the fact that some women would rather pleasure herself with a dog than a human qualify as a blackpill? I mean, think about it, youre so worthless, that some foids would rather spend time with dogs over you.

It would also apply to a Chad along the same line of argument, as the lesbians would choose foids over a 10/10 SMV'd Chad.

I think the problem here is that yes, were taking minority cases and making it overblown. I guess an incel "shouldnt worry" that some foids literally find dogs more desirable, just as a shouldnt worry about lesbians (because he is still desirable to majority of women).

Although i think the question of how prominent bestiality is among women is open for argumentation, the more prominent, the worse it is for incels, and the more valid dogpill becomes.

 

[BataviaCel]

Although i think the question of how prominent bestiality is among women is open for argumentation, the more prominent, the worse it is for incels.

A large dog is freedom

View: https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/14lvk2y/a_large_dog_is_freedom/ big black dog Jfl, you can't make this shit up, brutal dogpill in open sight :lul: :lul: :lul:

incels.is

jfl another dogpill thread just after im done writing that shit.

 

[BataviaCel]

Although i think the question of how prominent bestiality is among women is open for argumentation, the more prominent, the worse it is for incels, and the more valid dogpill becomes.

You're Bluepilled if you Don't Believe in the Dogpill

I'm not saying all foids fuck dogs, but a lot do, and there's far more foids who fuck dogs than unattractive men. I'd say about 25% of foids have gotten fucked at least once by their dog, it's why they're so obsessed with them.

incels.is

lots of users debating over the prominence of dogpill.

 

[Moroccancel]

I think the problem here is that yes, were taking minority cases and making it overblown

And that is one of my lines of argument. Making any deviation a blackpill has no fundamental basis.

Although i think the question of how prominent bestiality is among women is open for argumentation, the more prominent, the worse it is for incels, and the more valid dogpill becomes.

If there is no statistical or research basis and standards we would be talking about speculation and this leads to nothing. Even more so taking Larpit as evidence that does not go beyond anecdotal evidence.

Incels due to looking undesirable are unable to get sex (of course there are outliers). So, 99% of incels are undesirable, and if you ask any of these fuckers, they will glady take a canine cock up their ass than fuck an incel. That's why i said "some", not "majority". It is undeniable the reason why these foids love bestiality is because they find dogs' looks pleasing.

Yes, it is undeniable that "some" women have sex with dogs. That is undeniable, however, therein lies the crux of the matter. If we define the blackpill as a correlation of probabilities, the fact that a foid has sex with an animal objectively proves nothing, but that this foid objectively prefers a dog to an animal, and not a reason for our inceldom itself.