It's an argument normies throw around when you argue against chad's promiscuity, but it's fucking retarded.
1. It's unverifiable
The angle they're going for is trying to point out hypocrisy, but you imagining a scenario involving me doesn't prove shit. It would be hypocritical if it was true, yes, but it's not true, it doesn't happen. You can't argue based on imaginary scenarios (ok, unless like a thought experiment, don't nitpick). WTF is this
-you shouldn't rape babies
-umm… ackshually… you could rape babies, so it's hypocritical of you to say
-what do you mean? I'm against raping babies and I don't do it
-yeah, but in an alternative reality, where you are a child rapist, you do rape babies, so you just got deboonked
2. The premise is easily disproved
The assumption behind this argument is basically "you have no morals, no self-constraint, you do everything that's immediately pleasurable to do, so if you had the option to engage in this hedonistic ritual of serial sex, you would". It's simply not true for the vast majority of people. Not being fat is a proof of having restraint, you don't only eat fast food all the time just because it feels good. The moral part is a little more tricky because most basic morality is covered by the law, so you can't easily prove you actually respect the morals and not just avoid jail. Anything above the basic morality of the law is a proof, tho: are you nice to people, do you donate to charity, are you vegan, do you opt for public transport or bike instead of car when possible, do you donate blood etc. etc. I'm sure most incels can find something that suits them (the examples above apply to me).
1. It's unverifiable
The angle they're going for is trying to point out hypocrisy, but you imagining a scenario involving me doesn't prove shit. It would be hypocritical if it was true, yes, but it's not true, it doesn't happen. You can't argue based on imaginary scenarios (ok, unless like a thought experiment, don't nitpick). WTF is this
-you shouldn't rape babies
-umm… ackshually… you could rape babies, so it's hypocritical of you to say
-what do you mean? I'm against raping babies and I don't do it
-yeah, but in an alternative reality, where you are a child rapist, you do rape babies, so you just got deboonked
2. The premise is easily disproved
The assumption behind this argument is basically "you have no morals, no self-constraint, you do everything that's immediately pleasurable to do, so if you had the option to engage in this hedonistic ritual of serial sex, you would". It's simply not true for the vast majority of people. Not being fat is a proof of having restraint, you don't only eat fast food all the time just because it feels good. The moral part is a little more tricky because most basic morality is covered by the law, so you can't easily prove you actually respect the morals and not just avoid jail. Anything above the basic morality of the law is a proof, tho: are you nice to people, do you donate to charity, are you vegan, do you opt for public transport or bike instead of car when possible, do you donate blood etc. etc. I'm sure most incels can find something that suits them (the examples above apply to me).
