Men’s rights groups that support pedo/underage sex hysteria are feminist brainwashed imbeciles.

Delusional feminists believe that if that a relationship between a minor and an adult cannot be consensual, is by default abusive, because there is a power imbalance between minors and adults, adults are more powerful, blah blah blah, so on and so forth, therefore the minors cannot consent.

Bold claim frankly, I don’t believe all adults are more powerful than minors, age does not ultimately determine your intelligence, social skills or physical strength which are all important factors that will be determining your power level/advantage.

But whatever, the point is the argument is retarded even just in theory.

By that standard that power imbalances make consent impossible, minors also cannot consent to do anything else with adults that is not sex, and adults cannot consent to do anything with other adults, be it sexual or non-sexual, as long as there is a power imbalance. Period.

Some examples:

1: A little girl consents to hug her father. No, doesn’t work, he’s stronger than her, unfortunately consent was impossible. This is the same reason she can’t consent to a sexual act of any kind, that’s what feminists say.

2: A minor consents to work in an adult’s garden for some extra pocket money, they do not have a gun held to their head, they can leave any time. This is slavery, because there’s a power imbalance, which means the minor cannot consent, non-consensual work is slavery.

3: Same for adults unless you’re your own boss. Employers have higher power levels than employees, therefore if employees consent to work for employers, they did not actually consent because there’s a power imbalance making the consent impossible. So slavery again.

4: Women can’t consent to sex with men on average, unless they hit the gym hard and become just as strong as their male partner.

5: If we go on a picnic and I carry a gun in my pocket but you do not carry a gun in your pocket, and I offer you a slice of cake, well, too bad, if you consent to eat a slice of cake because you simply enjoy eating cake, you did not really consent to eat cake because I have a higher power level than you. Too bad, better dishonestly frame this as if I violently force fed you at gunpoint! We need feminism!

Here’s my take on this: obviously power imbalance does not inherently make something abusive, it obviously depends on whether or not the power is used to intimidate the weaker party or not.

If you only agree to take a slice of cake from me because I have a gun in my pocket and you’re scared I’m going to shoot you, then yes, it is an abusive situation. However, if you simply enjoy eating cake and you don’t give a fuck that I have a gun because you know I’m not going to use it on you anyway, then there’s no problem.

Same for the pedophile and/or intergenerational sex scenario. Why is the 14 year old boy fucking his 40 year old female teacher – because she threatened him with a worse math grade? Then it is abusive…or because he simply wants to get off in something other than his hand, as would be perfectly common for a physically healthy 14 year old boy? Then there’s no problem, power imbalance is only a problem if it’s used to intimidate.

I think men’s rights are brainwashed if they still believe in this dumb shit power imbalance nonsense by feminists in the first place.

Instead of just telling them to go fuck themselves, they take it to an even more absurd level where they want to pretend that if a 16 year old boy voluntarily fucks his female teacher, we should also pretend that he’s a rape victim who will be horribly traumatized for the rest of his life, whereas there was some point in history before where people only pretended that a 16 year old girl that voluntarily fucks her male teacher is going to be horribly traumatized for the rest of her life.

Completely mind controlled by the nazis they supposedly want to fight. Though of course, some of them are also just puritan assholes.

Why I think people really hate incels.

Why I think most really hate incels, IN-voluntary CEL-ibates, that was the original definition that feminists have now perverted into ”rapist”, ”mass shooter”, etc, it became just another buzzword like pedo that they throw at anyone they don’t like, so I’m using original definition of ”someone who simply has a hard time getting laid”.

They will of course say they hate them because there have been some mass shooters amongst incels, coming from communities that discuss topics surrounding involuntary celibacy.

Ok, but that does not explain why they hate any and all incels, why they are foaming at the mouth and want to burn someone at the stake who is simply complaining about being lonely and sexually frustrated, perhaps pointing out some unsavory truths like looks mattering much more than everyone is willing to admit – they may still feel disgusted by these guys and strawman them by accusing them of feeling entitled to rape women immediately.

”You’re lonely? Fuck off rapist! You have no right to rape me! You’re delusional, you’re not lonely, the patriarchy rape culture just brainwashed you into believing you have a sex drive!”

So what explains this attitude then? If they generalize so much and throw all incels into one category, that suggests to me that there is probably more truth to what many incels are saying, how looks/attractiveness determine how you are treated in society than they would like to admit, halo effect is a real thing.

The halo effect (sometimes called the halo error) is the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one’s opinion or feelings in other areas.^[1][2] Halo effect is “the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality.”^[3] The halo effect which is a cognitive bias can possibly prevent someone from accepting a person, a product or a brand based on the idea of an unfounded belief on what is good or bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Because such generalizations (this one guy from your group is a rapist, therefore you’re all rapists!) generally happen when people are already disgusted with something and therefore cannot think clearly enough to distinguish anymore.

As in, one incel did x, we already hate incels because they are unattractive and disgusting, therefore we’re going to label all of them as rapists and mass shooters.

Even if an incel is hateful, how do they feel so sure to know what came first? It could be that he’s a hateful person by nature, it could also be though that he was actually a good guy first but bullied by society and then started insulting them as filthy cunts and sluts – they never entertain that possibility, I suspect because they already made a judgement – these people are unattractive, pathetic, gross, so fuck them.

And then second of all, the just world fallacy.

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that “people get what they deserve” – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order. It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers “deserve” it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

One disgusting fact about humanity is that they hate those that suffer and thus show them how unfair life is, can also be extended to other areas, like a homeless person, or anyone in misery.

We believe in Karma – assuming that the downtrodden of the world must deserve their fate
On a related note, so strong is our inherent need to believe in a just world, we seem to have an inbuilt tendency to perceive the vulnerable and suffering as to some extent deserving their fate (an unfortunate flip-side to the Karmic idea, propagated by most religions, that the cosmos rewards those who do good – a belief that emerges in children aged just four). The unfortunate consequences of our just-world beliefs were first demonstrated in now classic research by Melvin Lerner and Carolyn Simmons. In a version of the Milgram set-up, in which a female learner was punished with electric shocks for wrong answers, women participants subsequently rated her as less likeable and admirable when they heard that they would be seeing her suffer again, and especially if they felt powerless to minimise this suffering. Presumably derogating the woman made them feel less bad about her dismal fate. Since then, research has shown our willingness to blame the poor, rape victims, AIDS patients and others for their fate, so as to preserve our belief in a just world. By extension, the same or similar processes are likely responsible for our subconscious rose-tinted view of rich people.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/

You see a homeless person and think ”what a piece of shit, he must be a child abuser!” because if he’s not, that would mean that bad things happen to good people, and you don’t want to live in a world where bad things happen to good people, so you pretend the good person is a bad person instead like the pathetic weasel you are, so you can sleep better at night, and spit on that homeless person.

Especially when they see that there is no easy fix to your problem they’ll hate you even more, because they want to feel like they can fix a problem, if they can’t, they instead opt for pretending that your problem is not a problem, if you keep saying it is, they will despise you for it, that’s how disingenuous homo sapiens are.

Another thing that I believe is related to this is also how human females often like to think of themselves as rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, the delusion that they just want a male that treats them well, but in reality they may have much more unsavory preferences of being roughed up by some violent criminal, perhaps even hybristophilia in some cases – sometimes if an incel actually goes on a shooting spree he then finally gets fangirls that want his corpse cock once it’s too late.

Good video on this subject:

I mean, let’s be real, it’s not like you need to be nice and caring to get laid, actual serial rapists and killers frequently get tons of pussy thrown at them, this is a well known fact.

Richard ‘the Night Stalker’ Ramirez was a thief, rapist and serial killer who got a kick out of breaking into strangers’ homes and murdering them in the mid-1980s. He also worshipped Satan, so not the kind of guy you want to bring home to meet your parents.
Well, to most people he isn’t; Cindy Haden – a juror at his trial – somehow fell head over heels for him and bought him clothes and a Valentine’s present. I didn’t think Satanists celebrate Valentine’s Day but what the hell do I know?
Naturally Richard was convicted, but once in prison women from all over lined up to visit him. Guess they liked the whole bad boy thing – and they don’t come much badder than being a Satan worshipping mass murderer! Richard loved the attention and played them off against each other to make them jealous. He eventually married one of these super fans in a prison ceremony before dying of natural causes in 2013.
To many women, Ted Bundy’s chiselled features and charm overshadowed the fact that he brutally killed at least thirty women and was a known rapist and necrophile.
These confused fans worshipped the notorious serial killer and flocked to his trial. One of the women, Carol Anne Boone – or, as she prefers to be known, Head Crazy – even married Bundy during the trial and went on to have his kid.
It didn’t end with his trial. While Bundy was incarcerated, he received two hundred letters a day from his loco fan club – many of whom thought he was innocent. Even today, years after his execution, a new generation of followers is obsessed with him, perpetuating the Bundy legend.
http://www.planetdolan.com/10-serial-killers-with-obsessive-groupies/2/

They don’t like to believe this about themselves, so they go into full rationalization mode and start turning everything upside down. That guy that bought me a flower? Well, he is some entitled incel piece of shit who just wants to rape me, I know it! The unempathetic cocky arrogant bully I get fucked in every hole by=well he’s just confident, women really like confidence, blah blah blah.

Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain the delusion that their perception of their sexual preferences is true and are not set out to reward those that have these character traits they claim to dislike.

Misguided labellings of things as good and bad/intrinsic vs. instrumental good and bad.

A short list of (I believe) misguided reasons why humans label certain things good and bad.

”Pain and suffering can be good, vaccination is painful but it’s good, working out can be stressful but it’s good, what about masochists? They like pain.”

So then suffering is only good because it helps you to avoid even more of it, which shows that it is not good, because you’re only tolerating to avoid even more of it.

Dying of a painful disease the vaccination protects you against=suffering.

Being weak and unhealthy which the workout protects you against=suffering.

Feeling sexual frustration if you don’t insert a nail into your urethra=suffering.

Suffering can only be a means to avoid to more of it, never the end goal, even the masochist is just inflicting the suffering onto themselves in an effort to avoid another.

Only pleasure but no suffering would get boring? Well, then it’s not pleasure anymore, boredom is obviously suffering.

”Little bit of childhood bullying can be good, makes you tougher, so then you’re able to deal with bullies later on in life.”

So then bullying and harassment is not good, the only reason why you’re saying it’s good is because later on there will also be bullying that you will have to learn to protect yourself against by being bullied earlier on. If bullying did no longer exist, then this would not be a necessity, so you failed to prove that bullying is good for the reason you stated.

”Selfishness can be good, cause otherwise, who’s going to look after you and take care of you if not you yourself?

The reason why no one would take care of you if you were not selfish is exactly because they are selfish, so then selfishness isn’t good, you’re only arguing that selfishness is good because it protects you against the selfishness of others.

It would be better if they derived pleasure from helping others, which of course is deep down also a selfish motivation, you could argue every action is ultimately selfish (you soothe your guilty conscience even when jumping on a grenade), but that’s a different topic, I’m using the definition of selfishness where it simply implies that you don’t derive your satisfaction from helping others.

”Empathy can be bad because it makes you vulnerable to being taken advantage of.”

Taken advantage of by whom? Right, the UN-empathetic, so if they had more empathy, would it not be good as it would prevent them from taking advantage of you?

”You gotta teach kids how to obey authority instead of questioning everything, cause otherwise they’re not gonna have a good time later on if they’re gonna be defiant all the time and question their boss or the police officer.”

And could it maybe be the case that the reason why their boss or the police officer later on will be a totalitarian piece of shit who expects people to bow to their authority without questioning is because they themselves have been raised in a culture that praises blind obedience to authority without questioning?

Could that not be part of the problem? Maybe if the police officer hadn’t been raised by some ”because I said so!” asshole, he wouldn’t be such a ”because I said so!” asshole either.

”Thinking and ruminating about negative/painful happenings in the world is bad cause it makes you depressed and you won’t be able to do anything about it.”

But often the very fact that people have the ability to turn their brains off and ignore reality is what led to the negative/painful event in the first place.

Let’s say I live in Nazi Germany and feel distressed about all the jews being gassed, I cannot blend the horror of what is happening out from my conscious perception into my subconscious perception.

Imagine everyone felt like this about it – then they wouldn’t be able to support the holocaust in the first place, but it is exactly the fact that the nazis are capable of rationalizing and pretending that jews are inanimate objects which makes it possible for them to do what they do.

If they were all incapable of doing this in the first place, the painful event would not be taking place. So why would the capacity for distraction aiding you to blend out that the holocaust is happening be a good thing?

Free will is impossible.

If we assume we live in a cause and effect universe, the concept of having free will should seem absurd right on its face. If every action has a cause of some sort, why would you assume your individual brain, or brains are somehow disconnected from this law?

Most people are able to understand this to some degree when it’s overtly visible, like with a brain tumor causing someone to act a certain way. They already understand that this person had no choice to act the way they did when they committed a crime because of how the brain was being effected, so they wouldn’t say they had a choice in the matter.

But they do suddenly see it as different when someone has a different brain configuration that makes them act a certain way right from the start or developed in a way that was less visible/observable to the average person, like a sadistic psychopath who presumably also 1. didn’t choose to be aroused by inflicting pain on others and 2. didn’t choose to be incapable of feeling empathy for others.

It’s incorrect to assume we ”have brains” we can control, it’s more like we are brains that are being caused to act up in certain ways by our environment, or we are the emotions and thoughts produced by that thing called a brain, that has a certain structure from the start and is also being influenced by the environment to create what we call ”us”, just like any other organ.

We make decisions, but these decisions are always preceded by factors ultimately out of our control, so it wouldn’t be fair to consider them truly free.

A similar example I’ve heard before that I think is good is let’s say you’re currently sitting in your living room, then you go to the kitchen to make food.

Was that a free choice? Not really, in order to be motivated to do so, you need to either be 1. hungry or 2. have appetite (for example). These are two things out of our control, it is fair to say we don’t choose to be organisms that feel hunger and appetite, it just happens.

If the discomfort of hunger and appetite is more intense than the comfort you derive from sitting on the couch, then you will likely stand up and go make some food, but if the comfort you derive from resting on the couch is more intense than the discomfort of hunger and appetite, then you will likely keep sitting on the couch.

Perhaps you’d say ”no, I can choose not to eat even though I’m hungry to prove you wrong!”.

But then the only reason why you’d do that is because I’ve triggered you into to wanting to prove to me that you can choose not to eat despite being hungry. Did this urge to disprove me not arise in you as a result of me telling you this, you wouldn’t keep stubbornly sitting in the living room.

Now the discomfort of losing an argument against me is stronger than the discomfort of the hunger, so you choose to keep sitting there on the couch.

Perhaps some people would still choose to get up to make food.

But that’s only because they don’t have the same psychological tendency that you have, which is wanting to desperately disprove me on this matter, they did not feel provoked to try to disprove me, and they didn’t choose to be unable to feel provoked by me into trying to disprove me, some people are just more apathetic.

And if you take the time to search long enough, you’ll find that there is no true freedom in any choice anyone ever made at any point.

You buy chocolate ice cream at the store. Is that a 100% free choice? I don’t think you chose to like the taste of chocolate. Perhaps you want to stop at some point because you’re getting fatter and fatter, fine, but did you choose to feel uncomfortable about getting fat? I don’t think so.

Likewise, if someone is getting fatter and doesn’t stop buying all that ice cream, did they choose to feel less discomfort than you at the thought of getting fatter than they feel from no longer eating all that chocolate ice cream, was that a conscious choice they made, did they sit down one evening and say ”I wish to feel that the discomfort I get from abstaining from eating chocolate ice cream is much more intense than the discomfort of becoming obese” – and abracadabra, magically, suddenly they were wired that way to be someone who’ll become fat?

And even if they did that, that just brings up another question, which is did they choose to want to want to feel more discomfort from abstaining than from becoming obese? How did they choose to want to want that?

And even if they did that, that just brings up another question, which is did they choose to want to want to want to feel more discomfort from abstaining than from becoming obese? How did they choose to want to want to want that?

Let’s use a more intense example where most people would be quick to judge since it involves harm/violence.

Let’s say two guys like Ted Bundy have a fetish for brutally raping and killing people. Did they choose that fetish? I don’t think so, seems highly inconvenient.

Person A rapes and kills people, person B doesn’t.

So you might say they have that fetish, but they can choose not to do it.

Sure – depending on different factors ultimately out of their control.

Person A could have chosen not to rape and kill people, perhaps, if he:

Had higher capacity to empathize with others like person B.
Didn’t grow up with abusive parents acting as bad role models.
Felt more discomfort from the idea of going to prison than from not raping.
Were less easily triggered into arousal.
Were less temperamental and angry.

So just another set of factors that we ultimately didn’t choose either. Do you think serial killers like that sat down with a magic wand one evening and decided to not be able to feel empathy so that they can be able to fulfill their fetish? And if they did have the ability to blend out feelings of empathy, at what point in time did they choose to acquire the ability to blend out empathy?

And if they did supposedly choose this ability and became emotionally colder when they had a traumatic event in their life when their mother exposed them in public for being a bed wetter in front of all the hot girls, did they choose that this event made them feel so uncomfortable that they were triggered into blocking out feelings of empathy for the female gender they now like to attack, starting to see them more as objects? Did they choose that it made them severely uncomfortable?

So on and so forth, so on and so forth. If you question long enough, you’ll find that not only some things are out of our control, ultimately all are out of our control, we are being motivated or we’re not being motivated to do certain things that will then directly affect how we later on do other things, nothing more to it it seems.

Some also like to say some acts are ”just random”, so that escapes the notion that it is all just cause and effect.

But even then of course, that still wouldn’t prove determinism wrong, that would just mean that it’s randomness effecting the outcome of our actions, so then randomness would become the deterministic factor for certain actions.

All in all, I don’t think there is any great evidence for the idea of free will in a cause and effect universe, we’re brains caused to act by factors we didn’t ourselves create, and the only way we can sustain the illusion that there’s some kernel of freedom is because we can’t directly observe which chain of events led to which chain of events – unlike with the brain tumor example at the beginning.

Brain tumor is easy to explain, that’s why this guy snapped and attacked everyone with a knife, it gets more complicated to grasp when you don’t have a clear example like that where multiple factors come into play as to why someone ultimately snapped and attacked someone with a knife.

This also doesn’t mean that therefore there is no point in ethics, I understand all ethics to be simply about sensation (consequentialism/utilitarianism), good and bad, pleasure and pain exist regardless of how free our will is – pain is still bad, even if you didn’t choose to cause it freely.

So of course, I wouldn’t say a serial rapist and murderer necessarily chose to commit serial rape and murder, so I wouldn’t think that a vengeful notion of going to hell for eternity as it is often preached by the religious would make any sense, but we can still argue that it is better to stop and arrest said rapist, just like it would be better to stop other harm-causing phenomena that didn’t choose to cause harm, like a cancer tumor or a tornado.

Religion is a bad argument.

Once you start appealing to one fantasy construct with no evidence behind it over another, it’s pretty much no more coherent of an argument than any other appeal to a different fantasy construct with no evidence behind it.

This type of double standard underlies essentially the vast majority of religious arguments, take for example the cosmological argument that the religious make to ”prove” god, i.e something cannot come from nothing, the universe must have been made by something, therefore, god.

First this then obviously forces them into the position of having to explain what caused god to happen, where they’d contradict themselves by stating that he came from nothing, although they just stated that everything must come from something, but there’s also simply no reason to arrive at the conclusion of god, rather than any other fantasy creature.

Something can’t come from nothing, therefore, santa clause. Why not allah instead of god, why not any other fantasy creature one could possibly come up with? There’s no reason.

Pascal’s wager – why not just follow god’s rules, just to be sure you’re not going to hell? Well, why not follow any other rule by a given fantasy creature just to be sure, the invisible gnome in my ass says he needs all your money, why not just give me all your money to prevent the third world war from happening, just to be sure?

Good question, you can substantiate your god just as much as I can substantiate the gnome in my ass, after all. Also good luck in practice, trying to follow different rules of different fantasy creatures without breaking one, what if the gnome in my ass says something entirely different from what the christian god or allah would say?

Or take the presuppositionalist argument, i.e just an inane presupposition that the religious like to make, to have knowledge, science, reason about anything, we must presuppose god exists. Again, just switch god for any other word, we must assume gnome in my ass to have knowledge, science, reason about anything, why not, why think of your god in particular immediately? It’s based on irrationality, gut instincts, intuition, social indoctrination, not some kind of rational basis.

The fact that many more irrational idiots might believe in a god than in the easter bunny or the gnome in my ass is obviously not an argument either, just a cheap appeal to popularity, many irrational idiots also believed the earth was flat and no older than 6000 years old, that doesn’t make it any more true because of the sheer number of irrational idiots believing in it.

The fact that I cannot 100% prove that your imaginary friend does not exist is obviously not an argument either, neither can you prove that the invisible gnome living inside my anus does not exist, you can’t disprove something for which no proof existed to begin with, so would you give me all your money because I’m telling you the gnome in my anus needs it to prevent the third world war and you can’t disprove that he exists? No.

I need to prove that there is a gnome living inside my asshole first, then you can disprove its existence, if I never even demonstrate any proof for it in the first place, then it cannot be disproven again – because there is no proof for it, just like there isn’t for god.

God is clearly not different from santa clause or the easter bunny in the sense that there is as much evidence for one as for the other, so if you seriously accept ”god told me to” as some kind of great philosophical argument in any kind of ethical discussion, for let’s say tying a child to a table and ripping its foreskin off with no anesthesia, you’d have to accept getting raped by someone with a sharp object as well because the ”the easter bunny told them to”, that’s the exact same reasoning you’re employing.

And finally, even if a god, a deity of some kind existed, to say that we should do what it says because it is a deity is obviously also just an appeal to authority, you’d still need to demonstrate why what the deity says is even in any way recommendable for us as sentient organisms, just like a doctor isn’t right in saying cigarettes prevent cancer just because he’s a doctor, the deity wouldn’t be right in anything it said just because it’d be a deity, it stands up to scrutiny or it doesn’t, just saying it’s written in a book about said deity that it’s always right isn’t evidence.