Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

RageFuel You all think genuine love only comes from having looks.

Pinpoint

Pinpoint

Banned
-
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Posts
6,717
Indicating that you all agree the archetypic arrangement/ unassailable imminence about the human inner build is that they are superficial.

Don't disagree. But why want love from that? ego/ narcissistic pleasure for being able to tame the tiger of humanity?
I wouldn't love them back. They're completely hierarchicalistic/ primal and getting love from that kind of thing is like being happy a wolf that was prone to biting you brought you some bunnies as tribute.
Eh. Still seems like solitude.
 
I see you're still wrestling with sentence composition. Doing better though, keep it up.

As for your question, the only romantic love that exists is the one based on physicality/attractiveness. Why not want that? The alternative is either loneliness or a form of prostitution in one form or another.
 
I see you're still wrestling with sentence composition. Doing better though, keep it up.

As for your question, the only romantic love that exists is the one based on physicality/attractiveness. Why not want that? The alternative is either loneliness or a form of prostitution in one form or another.
 
Love doesn't exist anyway
 
>Indicating that you all agree the archetypic arrangement/ unassailable imminence about the human inner build is that they are superficial.

:feelstastyman:
 
Don't pretend you're better than everyone else. You're an animal too. Animals need to breed. Pretending you're mentally above the desire to pass your genes along proves you're a failed human.
 
There is mutual lust between 7+s. Then there is settling and coping.
 
Don't pretend you're better than everyone else. You're an animal too. Animals need to breed. Pretending you're mentally above the desire to pass your genes along proves you're a failed human.
This is where you're wrong. I actually have morality. Some people have moral hopes for this world. I was raised catholic/ christian/ with loving people, and I wanted to wis hthe world well.
See my point? You really believe that the only fulfillment is through ego, and whoever preaches against it is full of shit, and is just a failed human?
I just think I have more sense to see value and virtue in most people. I'm not going to get a ban for bragging... but it's the primality of mankind that makes that an unhealthy obsession. I got laid, but sex to me is nothing compared to spirit/sapiosexuality.

You all weaving into thinking that primality is an inevitability is just sad to me.
I don't think I am better than others. I just believe those who recognize animality of people are ill-defined.
It's not that I failed to pass my genes or whatever. It's that people think nothing in life is anything but a horse race to do that.
We should find fulfillment in the idea of human bond, and spirit union. But people are way too desiring of dominance/ survival instincts to do that. It's sad.

I see you're still wrestling with sentence composition. Doing better though, keep it up.

As for your question, the only romantic love that exists is the one based on physicality/attractiveness. Why not want that? The alternative is either loneliness or a form of prostitution in one form or another.
You're the only one who bashes me for my idiosyncracy in writing. I might leave it the same to catch your amusing snideness.
No, I am saying I want a world where there wouldn't such a high emphasis on that at the expense of being friendly, communal, compassionate, etc.
>Indicating that you all agree the archetypic arrangement/ unassailable imminence about the human inner build is that they are superficial.

:feelstastyman:
You can imply irony on the way I typed that.
But I gotta remember the majority of you have made ... non-imagination the norm. To normie that text for you... the standard setup of the human mindset is determined by how it comes in the commonplace. And the commonplace comeby is definitely that humanity is superficial and doesn't give a shit about your immaterials above your materials. So there is no way that your inner desire can have mutuality with another fulfilled based on immaterials.
Hollywood romanticism creates a perfect insulated environment... like twilight where the superficiality of the "sad/ outcast girl" isn't prominent in the story because there aren't too many incels she comes across. So you don't hate her/ feel she is a cunt. But if she were put in more normal situations, then she would be a bitch.
Bluepill is dependent on a TON of insulation/ controlled environment exposure.
Redpill is what happens when you see the elements/ aspects of life play out in an uncontrolled course which leads to unpresentable instances.
 
Last edited:
This is where you're wrong. I actually have morality. Some people have moral hopes for this world. I was raised catholic/ christian/ with loving people, and I wanted to wis hthe world well.
See my point? You really believe that the only fulfillment is through ego, and whoever preaches against it is full of shit, and is just a failed human?
I just think I have more sense to see value and virtue in most people. I'm not going to get a ban for bragging... but it's the primality of mankind that makes that an unhealthy obsession. I got laid, but sex to me is nothing compared to spirit/sapiosexuality.

You all weaving into thinking that primality is an inevitability is just sad to me.
I don't think I am better than others. I just believe those who recognize animality of people are ill-defined.
It's not that I failed to pass my genes or whatever. It's that people think nothing in life is anything but a horse race to do that.
We should find fulfillment in the idea of human bond, and spirit union. But people are way too desiring of dominance/ survival instincts to do that. It's sad.


You're the only one who bashes me for my idiosyncracy in writing. I might leave it the same to catch your amusing snideness.
No, I am saying I want a world where there wouldn't such a high emphasis on that at the expense of being friendly, communal, compassionate, etc.
Morality is a flawed concept meant for flawed creatures that are exposed to an emotional system that actively works against the being's own best interests in favor of feel-good actions. Primality and tribalism will always be found in the human being, and the idea of a human being connecting to another spiritually itself is a primitive and rather impossible ideal that has no meaning other than to the peoples who think they've found an inner state of peace from the ever-present need to breed within this species.
 
Morality is a flawed concept meant for flawed creatures that are exposed to an emotional system that actively works against the being's own best interests in favor of feel-good actions. Primality and tribalism will always be found in the human being, and the idea of a human being connecting to another spiritually itself is a primitive and rather impossible ideal that has no meaning other than to the peoples who think they've found an inner state of peace from the ever-present need to breed within this species.
Yes, and we imply the distirbution of this concept amongst all common comebys with society. But morality is relative.
It's all primal/ primitive. All of these things weave from prehistoric preprogramming. Being compassionate/ loving is just something that I feel is positive, artificial, and worthwhile as a pursuit. impossible, perhaps. But what kind of world do we live in if we refuse to play our part?

This isn't implying peace. There's always something to do. You're projecting being a happy clappy laidbacker on this when in reality true good is rooted in vigilance.
 
Indicating that you all agree the archetypic arrangement/ unassailable imminence about the human inner build is that they are superficial.

Don't disagree. But why want love from that? ego/ narcissistic pleasure for being able to tame the tiger of humanity?
I wouldn't love them back. They're completely hierarchicalistic/ primal and getting love from that kind of thing is like being happy a wolf that was prone to biting you brought you some bunnies as tribute.
Eh. Still seems like solitude.
This is essentially what I told my friend at work when he was like "well what if some chick wants you someday?"...
 
:feelstastyman::feelskek: please stop putting suffixes on the end of words to try and make them sound like real words.
Science does the same. Geno-cide was a word created with the same rule. Incels need to create their own sociological science or you're all gonna be lost in the dark. Sorry that that's one of your autism irritability quirks though. Maybe you shouldn't be here.

Hierarchical = pertaining to things that pertain to hierarchies. (like humanity)
Ist = a person who practices or is concerned with something
ic - pertaining.

We pertain with things... that pertain to things that pertain to hierarchies. It's social awareness. And in understanding the social awareness of those who are also socially aware... we become more understanding of the context of what to be/ how to juge.

Pertains to people who are concerned with what pertains to hierarchies. A complex connection illustrated by the word.
This is why I need to do it. There needs to be a word for this but this language was developed by textbook armchair intellectuals from the british isles hundreds of years ago. They couldn't have seen what we're dealing with coming.

Yes. No such thing as love. All of you. Only mutual value exchange.
Love as it is romantically/ hollywoodly projected is all carefully crafted showmanship.
Mankind picks people out of vanity, or comfort really. The notion that someone's world becomes so much more complete/ vibrant with one person isn't a need people really have. They're gilding a rotten apple.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top