View Single Post
Old 07-26-2019, 05:37 PM
begbert2 is online now
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,472
Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
But inceldom is just not succeeding at dating and being celibate despite trying. That's the exact definition of the words "involuntarily celibate".
And the exact defintion of "pro-life" is "opposes the death penalty for adults too." The label is a lie - or at least tells nowhere near all of the story.

Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
I think it means involuntarily celibate.
And nobody can stop you from hewing to wrongness.

Originally Posted by TheFuture View Post
Even if everything you say about incels is true and every single man who has ever been incel is a rapist/monster/murderer/child-eater/goblin/demon, it wouldn't change whether or not the science says those things, would it?

So while you're free to talk about whatever you want of course, the actual science and implications were more what I was interested in discussing.
Incels have this thing called "looksmaxing", which is where the misguided fuckers think that if they alter their appearance in the specific correct way it will turn their faces into hypnosis devices which will force women to fuck them. That women aren't yet forced to fuck them is not proof that looksmaxing is the stupidest thing since the square wheel; it is instead proof that they haven't looksmaxed hard enough.

As noted, they're not reading their cites correctly; they're instead reading their cites through the lens of "can I use this cite to support my retarded notion that women are as shallow as puddles and care about nothing, nothing but looks, status, and money?" This means that the implications of the cites are, nay, must be either, "god, incels don't understand their own cites" or "god, this so-called science is shit!"

Because proper science properly understood doesn't lead to obviously false conclusions, such as their belief that only super-attractive men can get the attention of women.