WOMEN ARE ENTITLED TO CERTAIN THINGS! GET OVER IT!

Lmao look at this delusional normie.

You’ve been baited goober

No, no one is entitled to anything

That’s actually false. You’re entitled to many things by law. But no, you’re not entitled to a citizen that isn’t a government employee on duty to help you.

Of course you aren't but if seeing another human being in trouble doesn't make you sympathize or want to help them, you're a shitbag who kinda deserves to be ostracized.

Begone curry whore. Go suck more Chad cock

U jelly?

seen your pic you are ugly af holy Shit ahahahahahahah

That's all you could come up with? Pity.

An incel calling someone else ugly Pot, meet kettle.

U mad?

you look like a brown cow lmao nice attention whore back then AHAHAHAHah

And this is exactly why we don’t have any sympathy. Great job.

Because you’re all pieces of shit who treat people like shit and blame everyone else for you being a piece of shit?

NotAllCalculators

https://i.imgur.com/iVUUcEE.png

KEK

only true incels will recognize this picture tbh. god that post was god tier.

Lol

for the uninitiated

my legs are not entitled to walk when i command them when trying to help someone

Good times.

Yup, this post is going to get brigaded in 9 hours.

Everyone is entitled to some things.

Oh? Where is this all written? Is there a book somewhere? Did I miss a day of school?

Any of the seminal thinkers or works that underpin the ordering of western social and political society will do.

We both know that is a cop-out answer. You made a concrete, normative claim. What is the rational behind it? If you want to be serious let's be serious: what is the definitive "rule book" for what people are and are not entitled to? What does "entitled" even mean? Why should I consider it the definitive rule book?

Regardless, I'm not saying anyone is obligated to date me: I'm saying the suffering that is the result of the choices of women is so abusive that I'd rather die. The suffering I experience is a direct result of their choices. They are responsible. At the same time it is not necessary that anyone be obligated to date me.

It's not a cop out. You begged a question and reduced the claim to absurdity by pretending that there needs to be a definite "rulebook" before anyone can have conviction about anything. Our civilization is grounded in a particular legacy of social and political thinking: for shorthand, we're generally talking about humanism, liberty, and human rights. I take my cues on entitlement and obligation from there. You don't have to, but then you also have no basis to complain about any wrongdoing or hurt without providing a "rulebook" of your own.

You may be right that your suffering would be alleviated by a woman dating you, but if you're suggesting that it's therefore wrong of them not to (and based on your word choice - "abusive" - it sounds like you are), I disagree; it's possible for someone to cause or allow another to hurt without doing anything wrongful. If the only way to help someone is to sacrifice your own human rights, you don't have to. We're also talking about positive and negative rights, and freedom "to" vs "from."

With all this in mind, unless you're operating on a completely different moral framework whose "rulebook" you'd like to share, it's impossible for you to make a credible claim that women have a moral obligation to replace your suffering with their own by surrendering their fundamental natural rights (sovereignty over their own bodies, etc.) to promote your wellbeing.

You begged a question and reduced the claim to absurdity by pretending that there needs to be a definite "rulebook" before anyone can have conviction about anything.

You're claiming I claimed something I didn't, setting up a straw man argument. You can have conviction about anything, but no one is required to agree with you simply because you're convinced about it.

You don't have to, but then you also have no basis to complain about any wrongdoing or hurt without providing a "rulebook" of your own.

I agree, but you're the one making claims about who is entitled to what, not me.

You may be right that your suffering would be alleviated by a woman dating you, but if you're suggesting that it's therefore wrong of them not to (and based on your word choice - "abusive" - it sounds like you are), ...

Again, you're projecting and presenting an inaccurate interpretation of what I'm saying. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills before commenting again.

If the only way to help someone is to sacrifice your own human rights, you don't have to.

Dating me isn't necessarily sacrificing your human rights. Maybe once a woman dates me should would choose to continue dating me, but she doesn't in the first place because of her prejudices.

We're also talking about positive and negative rights, and freedom "to" vs "from."

When everyone rejects you it is a restriction on freedom "to".

... it's impossible for you to make a credible claim that women have a moral obligation to replace your suffering with their own by surrendering their fundamental natural rights (sovereignty over their own bodies, etc.) to promote your wellbeing.

Their choices violate my sovereignty over my body to promote their well being. How is that fair?

You're claiming I claimed something I didn't, setting up a straw man argument. You can have conviction about anything, but no one is required to agree with you simply because you're convinced about it. Your clear implication was that I have no argument because I failed to tell you "where it was written." That's a garbage insinuation, and I even did tell you where it was written.

I agree, but you're the one making claims about who is entitled to what, not me. You're claiming that not dating you constitutes abuse. That's an enormously normative claim for which you've provided zero basis, all while you complain that I'm being too normative.

Again, you're projecting and presenting an inaccurate interpretation of what I'm saying. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills before commenting again. Ok. If we agree that women aren't doing anything wrong by not picking you, we're on the same page.

Dating me isn't necessarily sacrificing your human rights. Maybe once a woman dates me should would choose to continue dating me, but she doesn't in the first place because of her prejudices. "Maybe she'd like the results if I stamped all over her human rights." Maybe she would. Doesn't matter. The violation is removing her right to choose.

When everyone rejects you it is a restriction on freedom "to". "Everyone" is a result of individuals making individual choices. They aren't communicating. They aren't coordinating. No single one of them is doing anything wrong. That there's a broad, collective result of a series of individual choices is unfortunate, but no one's fault. It's a fallacy to assume collective action because of a consistent result.

Their choices violate my sovereignty over my body to promote their well being. How is that fair? No, it absolutely, unequivocally, does not. The more fundamental set of rights - negative rights - consist essentially of being left in peace, to not be interfered with (e.g. physical security, to be free from molestation, etc.) This completely trumps your desire for a positive right - the provision of something you need - i.e. physical intimacy. A choice to exercise a negative right does prevails. This is not a contradiction, nor a new idea. It's the basis of huge portions of our laws, society, and sense of justice.

Your clear implication was that I have no argument because I failed to tell you "where it was written." That's a garbage insinuation. Besides, I did tell you what my basis was.

OK, I'll spell it out for you. "Where it was written" means:

• Widely known

• Widely accepted as legitimate and authoritative

• Should be binding on me

• Easy for me to find, understand, and confirm your meaning is implied

All you did was say your opinion, and then give no concrete reference when asked. The problem with your response of saying "any of the founding documents," or something to that effect, unduly puts the burden on me to find one, and then show you that your conclusion doesn't follow. You could always come back an say "no, not that one, another one" and the cycle would continue until one of us gave up. What part of that dynamic did I get wrong? If that dynamic is more or less right, then simply through the meta framing of the situation there is no scenario where you'd change your opinion. The "game" is rigged and you'll always "win" by default. So, it is hard for me to take you seriously because you come off as being unwilling to have an honest conversation.

You're claiming that not dating you constitutes abuse. That's an enormously normative claim for which you've provided zero basis, all while complaining about my normativity.

Again, you're misquoting me into a straw-man position. Remember u/KingOfCorinth, your original comment was "Everyone is entitled to some things. No one's obligated to date you." I replied, then you replied, and in my reply to that comment I wrote in part "... Regardless, I'm not saying anyone is obligated to date me: I'm saying the suffering that is the result of the choices of women is so abusive that I'd rather die. ..."

So, you got the "constitutes abuse" part right, but you left out an important detail: it that all women choose "not dating" me. Not just one, or a few, or most: all.

I don't need to provide support or a basis for why my claim is true because I am only reporting on my subjective experience. If I were to describe what the unanimous rejection I'm subject to feels like, I'd say it is similar to experiencing abuse. It is hard to precisely describe it, but the way I experience it feels close to how I'd describe the feeling of being abused.

If we agree that women aren't doing anything wrong by not picking you, we're on the same page.

We don't. I'm not making any statement about how right or wrong their actions of not picking me are. I see it as a conclusion each person can come to on their own, if they want, or conclude that it doesn't make sense to make a judgement in the first place. You're presuming their actions have a quality, like an SAT score, that is one dimensional, and in one extreme is 100% right and in the other extreme is 100% wrong, the "score" is objective, and can be known. Any one of those assumption may not hold, and I make no claim about any of them.

"Maybe she'd like the results if I stamped all over her human rights." Maybe she would. Doesn't matter.

Again, not really what I was saying. I was saying more like "don't judge a book by its cover."

The violation is removing her right to choose.

Not what I'm advocating for, but I understand how you might think so given what some say on incel subreddits. That said, there are plenty of things I disagree with but am (more or less) forced to participate in and support. I live in the US and pay taxes, and there are many things those taxes pay for that I don't like. Sure, technically the US government is a representative democracy, but there are many things that the government is going to do, and nothing I could do would stop those things (that I don't agree with) from happening. I don't get to choose. I don't have a right to choose.

"Everyone" is a result of individuals making individual choices.

Not inconsistent with my position.

They aren't communicating. They aren't coordinating.

Their friends. The internet. Books. Magazines. TV. Those are all mediums for communication and coordination.

No single one of them is doing anything wrong. That there's a broad, collective result of a series of isolated choices is unfortunate, but no one's fault. It's a fallacy to assume collective action because of a consistent result.

That's how many "wrong" things happen. People can act in their own interest, without coordination, and you could ask yourself, what purpose do the outcomes that emerge from all of their uncoordinated actions serve? If there were a single consciousness creating the outcomes, what would it want? What would its goals be? That's what Adam Smith's "invisible hand of the market" is. His ideas form part of what supports modern western thought. I'm not assuming anything; there are many real-world examples you can see for yourself.

No, it absolutely, unequivocally, does not. The more fundamental set of rights - negative rights - consist essentially of being left in peace, to not be interfered with (e.g. physical security, to be free from molestation, etc.)

I agree. They're not leaving me "in peace", I'm being left and it affects me in ways I have no influence over. I have no influence in how they effect me, unless you agree that a loop-hole to the violation of negative rights is that it isn't a violation if the subject could change something about the way they think or see the world that would redefine (for example) the way they're being molested as something that isn't molestation. In other words, if you think it isn't fair to say "I'm going to do this to you, and if you don't like it I'm not doing anything wrong because you could do something that would make what I'm doing to you not hurt" then you should also agree that it isn't fair that they all reject me because I could just do something (e.g., focus on hobbies, change my views of right and wrong, change my attitude) that could possibly make their actions hurt me less.

You seriously want me give to you a bibliography about modern human rights and their legal frameworks? Start with Locke and Hobbes maybe, and some UN documents can show you how those older concepts have evolved over time. Candidly, that's about as much effort as I plan to put it into explaining principles that are common knowledge and ubiquitous in our society. If your method of arguing is "you didn't give me a reading list, so I'm right" then so be it.

Despite your attempt to turn it around, women not choosing to date you isn't a violation of your negative rights. That there are consequences to your being "left alone" doesn't make it a negative right, it's just unfortunate. In no way is "not providing me with something" or "failing to allow to me to get what I want by not giving it to me" make what you want a negative right, no matter how you phrase it. Their negative right (to not be forced to be with you, to choose who gets to fuck them) trumps your positive right (to have a partner). It's the same reason it would be immoral of me to kill you and your family so I can steal your house and food to ensure the safety of my family. Doesn't matter that me and my family would die if I don't do it. My right to life and safety and anything else end at the point that it requires me to infringe on the rights of another (some exceptions here, i.e. most would forgive me for saving my family by stealing something trivial, like a loaf of bread from a rich man. However in your case, nothing is trivial; your emotional well being and mental health vs their emotional well being and sovereignty over their own bodies are similarly important, so only negative/positive helps us navigate which should prevail).

You don't have to agree with any of this. Maybe you're purely a consequentialist (it's a not widely accepted as a functioning moral philosophy, but maybe it works for you). But don't pretend like my claims are baseless. The claims "everyone is entitled to some things," and "no one is obligated to date you" is an extremely simple claim backed by the centuries of legal and moral philosophy that form the basis for our society.

No, no one is entitled to anything.

Nobody is obligated to even speak to you either

And yet, here you are.

Nope, No one is entitled to anything.

In these hypothetical situations the only thing I would think about is will they get me for violating the good samaritan laws - its a thing in the US. If you don't assist a person in an accident for example.

You don't have to help if it would put you at risk. At least that's how it works in Yurop.

I would be risking losing self esteem and losing keks if I help out a roastie in danger. But the courts won't understand that. I will have to roastie memes in court for the jury to get why I was standing there and laughing instead of helping the screaming roastie.

Most states don't have those laws

Somebody watches too much Seinfeld.

Who ever gets arrested for that? How would they prove it? That’s like worrying about getting arrested for downloading music illegally. It’s extremely unlikely to happen.

True. But incels have the worst luck. The most unlikely shit seems to find a way into our lives.

MRA here, and I've read about these laws. Good Samaritan laws protect you when you try to help in good faith. They do NOT require you to help anyone in distress. That's called Duty to Rescue, and they do not exist outside Quebec.

Oh ok. Thanks. I can kek in peace then.

Reminds me of Kanye

truly blackpilled individual. very cool

Advocating violence I see, this is why you guys are ostracized.

White knighting faggot.

Where is this post advocating violence? Also, have you ever thought that someone might advocate violence because they’re ostracized? 🤔

No one is advocating violence. We are advocating for our own bodily autonomy. My body my choice. If I don't want to help someone out, I don't have to.

diZ Iz y u incel

"This Iz WhY YoUr a InZel"

I hate the word entitled

Damnnn lmao

Lmao look at this delusional normie.

No, no one is entitled to anything

White knighting faggot.

Where is this post advocating violence? Also, have you ever thought that someone might advocate violence because they’re ostracized? 🤔

No one is advocating violence. We are advocating for our own bodily autonomy. My body my choice. If I don't want to help someone out, I don't have to.

diZ Iz y u incel

"This Iz WhY YoUr a InZel"