So....how many posters do we have who have heard of this INCEL Movement?

[danielpalos]

that is your fantasy, not mine. you tell me how that is equality. any more, red herrings, right winger?

My fantasy is actual equality. Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.

You don't want equality. Equality lets everyone choose in the same way. That is not what you want.

I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman? If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you? I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.

lol. you have nothing but fallacy. your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.

You make it seem like women don't like sex.

I have not posted a single logical fallacy. There is no strawman in my posts.

Most of the women I know love sex. But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone. Why should they?

you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.

I did not say that. But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers. So you obviously haven't had many takers.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?

i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.

i am talking about equality. i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship. i am the one with that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.

Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...

I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves. I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.

 

[impuretrash]

I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.

Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...

I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves. I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.

What you're describing is classical liberalism, a concept that disguised itself as an alternative to whatever the American left is selling but it's really just the same thing but with more foreign war for oil. True right wing conservatism is a society where women are women and men are men and homos are in the closet, where they belong.

 

[WinterBorn]

My fantasy is actual equality. Not pretending to be in favor of it to get laid.

You don't want equality. Equality lets everyone choose in the same way. That is not what you want.

I have asked this before, but what do you offer a woman? If she is choosing between you and other men, what do you offer that makes her want to choose you? I have told you, this is the crux of your problem.

lol. you have nothing but fallacy. your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.

You make it seem like women don't like sex.

I have not posted a single logical fallacy. There is no strawman in my posts.

Most of the women I know love sex. But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone. Why should they?

you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.

I did not say that. But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers. So you obviously haven't had many takers.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?

i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.

i am talking about equality. i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship. i am the one with that.

I did not mention capitalism. Nor did I mention serious relationships.

I asked a simple question.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am offended by the right-wing viewpoint, and the so-called "Christian" viewpoint that all sex is of the closing-time, back-of-a-car, people-who-don't-know-each-other. Their sex is cheap. Not playing.

Is the left-wing viewpoint of sex basically a free for all? Do what you want as long as if feels good, thats the left in a nutshell... That's how it seems to me...

I think most people on the left think we should let each person decide for themselves. I remember a time when those on the right were more about individual freedom and less concerned about what people did in their bedrooms.

What you're describing is classical liberalism, a concept that disguised itself as an alternative to whatever the American left is selling but it's really just the same thing but with more foreign war for oil. True right wing conservatism is a society where women are women and men are men and homos are in the closet, where they belong.

When I made my comment I was talking about heterosexuality.

 

[Crepitus]

Most or many people are involuntarily celibate

I don't think that's true.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Involuntary Celibate males? The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too. (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum) What's up with this? Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?

Never heard of these guys ..it dont take much effort to get those panties to come flyin off....you should recruit them for the gays
they probably look like the alberta communist party

I mean who would fuck any of these people... Although I bet ya I could fix up big ol lurch in the back ... have to see her body first
I love super tall broads with legs that dont quit

 

[danielpalos]

lol. you have nothing but fallacy. your straw man argument is Yours, not mine.

You make it seem like women don't like sex.

I have not posted a single logical fallacy. There is no strawman in my posts.

Most of the women I know love sex. But that does not mean they will have it with just anyone. Why should they?

you are alleging, no women on Earth, like me enough to do me.

I did not say that. But you keep harping on your lack of experience and low numbers. So you obviously haven't had many takers.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?

i am not the one appealing to ignorance of economics under our form of Capitalism.

i am talking about equality. i don't pursue women for a really really serious relationship. i am the one with that.

I did not mention capitalism. Nor did I mention serious relationships.

I asked a simple question.

If you were to rank women by appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, what is your minimum number for you to pursue her?

her personality is more important.

 

[WinterBorn]

Involuntary Celibate males? The driver in Toronto was one....we had one kill many people in CA recently too. (no, I will not put out their names...they are just scum) What's up with this? Guys who can't get laid have a movement....cheer on violence against women....against "Chad" and "Stacy" (regular people with regular relationships)....what's up with that?

Never heard of these guys ..it dont take much effort to get those panties to come flyin off....you should recruit them for the gays
they probably look like the alberta communist party

I mean who would fuck any of these people... Although I bet ya I could fix up big ol lurch in the back ... have to see her body first
I love super tall broads with legs that dont quit

The girl holding the sign is pretty hot. The girl beside her has potential.

But dating a communist wouldn't work.

 

[Vastator]

One of the reason arranged marriages work so well, much to the surprise of the promiscuous West, is biology. With each successive sexual partner a woman has, her ability to pair bond is diminished. So if a girl starts having sex at 15, or 16, and ends up having had 3 partners by 18, or 5,6,7, and in many cases, many more, by the time they are"ready to settle down"; they are so damaged that they can't keep a functioning relationship viable. Their biological ability to pair bond has been nearly completely destroyed. Which is in no small part why so many marriages fail.

I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.

The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.

I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage? Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.

Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.

They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.

How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?

Quite well. For the ones for whom it didn’t work out, not so well... Their genetic contribution has been left in the dustbin of history.

 

[SweetSue92]

I'm not sure that arranged marriages work well, although the two that I know of seem to have been successful, with one ending in the death of my friend and co-worker from the Punjab. Unfortunately, there is no study of whether people in arranged marriages cheat, but I have heard that one of the reasons for the spread of HIV in India was male truck drivers bringing the infection home to their wives.

The "west" has always been "promiscuous." Generals in the civil war were worried about STDs among their troops, and that was in the 1860's. Thomas Jefferson had children with at least one enslaved woman to whom he was not married.

I notice that you only speak of women and our ability to "pair bond." Are there no similar theories about men? It seems that we have a lot of married men who have a spare (or more) on the side. That is what Chris Watts did, and Scott Peterson did, and they both had babies on the way (Watts already had babies, as well, and he murdered them). Don't they represent an inability to "pair bond"? Did this have anything to do with their sexual experiences prior to marriage? Even the guy whom you call "president" has exhibited a lack of ability to "pair bond."

Genetically from a biological stand point? No. Since the dawn of mankind a woman’s best possible chance at successfully passing on her sequence relied on bonding with a male who could provide support, and protection while she was pregnant, birthing, and rearing children. Conversely a mans best chance at passing on his sequence has been to cast it far, and wide. Over millennia of successful breedings, the psychology that brought the current generation to where it is today is still with us. The modern conventions of sex without consequence, an at will support net from “society”, and the rampant proliferation of single mothers, fly contrary to the innate psychology were each born with.. From an evolutionary stand point this all occurred just a blink ago. Despite what many claim to “want”, the human psyche isn’t optimized for such conditions.

So if "biology" dictated the home, the woman would be having baby after baby for the man, the man would be supporting her but also, potentially, out impregnating other women. Oh, and when she reaches menopause, she's useless, so ditch her and get yourself a younger wife. What anyone does with the post-menopausal wives is their problem.

Gosh, that biological society sounds lovely. Set it up as a religion and see how many followers you get! You can call it the Order of DudeBros.

They already have a couple of religions that have operated this way for hundreds upon hundreds of years. They took from before them, the tactics that worked. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind.

How well have these "tactics" worked out for women?

Quite well. For the ones for whom it didn’t work out, not so well... Their genetic contribution has been left in the dustbin of history.

But there again, so what?

It seems you have to choose one: biological values or ethics and morality.

 

[Vastator]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. But only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

 

[SweetSue92]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.

In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.

So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?

 

[Vastator]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.

In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.

So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?

You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.

 

[SweetSue92]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.

In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.

So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?

You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.

The future doesn't belong to any of us. What are "genes", other than your own personal pride, like building little human buildings you can leave behind. Okay, fine, you have the freedom to do that if you like. But you cannot guarantee that this is "the future". A pandemic could wipe out those "genes". So could another asteroid, an ice age caused by sunspots, many things.

 

[Vastator]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right? Which really puts man no higher than animals. But that's what we are without God, so it makes sense. All of our "values", such as they are, are only organizing principles for social groups.

In that case passing on your genes has no real value either other than your own personal pride.

So what? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Your parents died; you will die; your kids will die. Destined for worm food on this spinning rock, just counting down eons until the next asteroid hits and resets another life cycle. Who cares?

You make many erroneous assumptions, as to what you think I value or believe. It’s a waste of time, and effort. If passing on your genes holds no value for you... That is your fate. The world, and future belong to those who feel otherwise, and have the ability to see it through. Do with your life as you will. Selfish gain for a comfortable existence forsaking your own mortality, and foresight for the future; in exchange for obsolescence, and a hope for something more once your “worm food” as you put it. It matters little to me.

The future doesn't belong to any of us. What are "genes", other than your own personal pride, like building little human buildings you can leave behind. Okay, fine, you have the freedom to do that if you like. But you cannot guarantee that this is "the future". A pandemic could wipe out those "genes". So could another asteroid, an ice age caused by sunspots, many things.

To be immobilized to innaction for fear of what might happen, which is out of our control is weakness. Ones efforts are more productive when applied to that which they can control.

 

[Vastator]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?

If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.

 

[SweetSue92]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?

If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.

That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that. You also said those principles got me here. So, this biology seems very important as life values to you.

 

[Vastator]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?

If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.

That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that.

I will. You went so far as to actually use quotations, and claim I underlined something that I did not. It was willfully, and knowingly dishonest, and done only in an effort to give readers a sense that what was merely your interpretation; were my actual words. I give no time to such people. Goodbye...

 

[SweetSue92]

So what? Well... That’s your burden to carry. If you don’t wish for your line to carry on and continue to be a part of the story of life, and secure a place for your progeny in the future; that’s your business. Your place in the generations to come will be taken by those more willing, and able than yourself. As it should be. As it has always been.
As for your ethics, and values..? They die with your line. Sure; others may share similar, if not the same values. Biut only those who can manage to succeed will usher that banner into the future.
For a condensed glimpse into the fatalistic practice of putting religious, and social convention ahead of pragmatic awareness of ones mortal self, and the perpetuation of their line, (and their ethics and values along with them); learn about the Shakers.

So really back to you signature: you really only mean that part about blood and soil. You underlined that in the "man must spread his seed but stay with women long enough to raise seed" part, right?

If you could link me to the post where you attribute this quote that you claim I've underlined; that would be helpful. It might show that I simply don't recall making that particular post. Or it might demonstrate that you hear, what you want to hear rather than what you're actually told.

That's what you asserted earlier in the thread; it was not a direct quote. I'm not going to quibble about that.

I will. You went so far as to actually use quotations, and claim I underlined something that I did not. It was willfully, and knowingly dishonest, and done only in an effort to give readers a sense that what was merely your interpretation; were my actual words. I give no time to such people. Goodbye...

Okay so same goes. When you're losing so badly that you don't want to claim your actual positions as your actual positions, then your positions are tenuous at best.

I would urge you to really think about your highest life values. Bye