BlkPillPres
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2018
- Posts
- 19,737
I've noticed there are a good few users on this site that well often argue that inceldom isn't just about lacking access to sex, and its about lacking "love", "acceptance", "validation", etc
Here's the obvious paradox in this line of argumentation
By that logic there are Chads and Stacies who can also be incel
If inceldom is not just about lack of access to sex, if someone can GET SEX, but is not "LOVED" or "ACCEPTED" or "VALIDATED"
THEY ARE INCEL ON SOME LEVEL
Now If you argue that getting sex by default means you are "loved" or "accepted" or "validated" by humans, then your argument makes even less sense (contradictary), because that means we are both in agreeance that INCELDOM IS ABOUT SEX, BECAUSE SEX = LOVE, ACCEPTANCE, VALIDATION
This is an easy to see paradox, you can't both argue that it isn't just about sex its about other things, and then argue that getting sex means you have those other things by default, because you are then essentially arguing it is indeed just about sex JFL
If inceldom isn't defined by OBJECTIVE CRITERIA (lack of access to sex) but is instead defined by SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA the definition will obviously be FULL OF HOLES
Think about it
What is love, acceptance, validation, etc?
What degrees of these "other things" would we limit the definition around to properly and legitimately include or exclude individuals?
It would never really make sense
Here's the obvious paradox in this line of argumentation
By that logic there are Chads and Stacies who can also be incel
If inceldom is not just about lack of access to sex, if someone can GET SEX, but is not "LOVED" or "ACCEPTED" or "VALIDATED"
THEY ARE INCEL ON SOME LEVEL
Now If you argue that getting sex by default means you are "loved" or "accepted" or "validated" by humans, then your argument makes even less sense (contradictary), because that means we are both in agreeance that INCELDOM IS ABOUT SEX, BECAUSE SEX = LOVE, ACCEPTANCE, VALIDATION
This is an easy to see paradox, you can't both argue that it isn't just about sex its about other things, and then argue that getting sex means you have those other things by default, because you are then essentially arguing it is indeed just about sex JFL
If inceldom isn't defined by OBJECTIVE CRITERIA (lack of access to sex) but is instead defined by SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA the definition will obviously be FULL OF HOLES
Think about it
What is love, acceptance, validation, etc?
What degrees of these "other things" would we limit the definition around to properly and legitimately include or exclude individuals?
It would never really make sense
Last edited: