The sense of free will is indeed necessary for happiness in an individual, theres studies showing that once your desires for food, water etc have been met. What next is on the totem poll is the desire for freedom.
saying there is subjective goodness to oneself based on their nature and recognising or believing no objective goodness are two separate concepts. Its not a contradiction, I've become convinced that DDO debaters are better than the debaters here.
You didnt understand it as you don't know the philosophy behind the argument i put forth, i imagine if you talked about Kant and synthetic a priori's it would appear to be word salad to them too. In fact thats probably word salad to you, i bet you dont know what that means either.
Not a free will debate Benjamin, you literally have no idea about the philosophy i talked about in that round. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying its some pseudo intellectual word salad. Its not, its a real philosophy. "no clear argument format" brother, you just didn't understand it, that's all.
Just look at south korean men, they're all very blackpilled. They realise how much their looks matter, in korea you even have to put a picture of your face on your job applications, at least you used too.
Your concerns are correct, it is a dangerous ideology. Its very nihilistic, it is however, true. Women recognise this truth and they take it in their stride, i think pretending your looks dont matter if your a man is the cause of all this destruction, yet if people were honest, that they do matter then we would know what to expect and be able to adjust to it, just as women do.
You should be upset about any unfairness in life, actually. We don't like unequal pay. That's not to say we should be enraged by it. I see nothing wrong with recognising the blackpill as true, if you are a very mentally and emotionally developed person. Almost all women are blackpilled for instance, they recognise their looks are vital. We dont see them shooting up schools, a big part of this is because men are told our looks dont matter.
Ok, well there we go. You said the blackpill wasn't true, we now agree it is. When i opened the debate my main intent for the debate was to argue looks are more important than personality when it comes to dating, although i probably assumed too much knowledge. so it took a different turn than i was expecting.
To rationalise that these men who go on these killings sprees are just lunatics, is a negation of their environment, it doesnt solve the problem of how to stop this. Being willfully ignorant about it isnt going to make it go away. I agree they're full of hatred, they're sexists. This is not good, yet we must look at the things which make them this way objectively.
You havent proved the blackpill wrong, all you've done is shown me links to studies showing a link between academic performance and wealth. Thats obvious.
The fact rich people have it the easiest is not a negation of the black pill. I wouldn't deny that, growing up with a two parent household and being at least middle class are the biggest determiners of success. Yet your looks still matter, especially if you want to escape poverty, only one look at tiktok shows the vanity of people.
Reverse causation? these studies get peer reviewed studied by sociologists, all kinds of researchers, any complaints you think of im sure they have thought of themselves and discussed it. I don't believe your reverse triangle, the researchers dont, so i dont.
More men are becoming increasingly lonely, this is objectively true. More men are going without wives, lovers. Not that im an incel myself, im not. I do however see where the movement has came from this psychology if we look at the data.
That's true. We must check our biases and sadly trends show people have a bias towards tall men as leaders. This is why education on this is important, this is why inceldom has skyrocketed recently and we see men shooting up schools over it. We didnt see this 30 years ago, yet if you look at my round 1 argument, the stastics since 2008 make everything clear, it shows where this movement has come from.
You're literally arguing rich people are bigger, stronger and smarter than non rich people on average genetically. This is really incorrect, wealth within a family usually only lasts for two generations before it is lost.
We can just look to politicians who didnt grow up in political familes, such as joe biden. Hes a farm boy! hes still 6 foot though, hes now 5'11 from age.
"In the last one hundred years in US history the tallest presidential candidates received more popular votes in 88% of the elections, and won 84% of the time."
You're literally just assuming all of this, you have no data to support the idea that people born richer are genetically more prone to being taller. Literally just 200 years ago the average dutch male was 5'4, you're making this up off the top of your head as you go on as it sounds right.
You cannot deny the facts, the empirical data. your philosophical inquiries have nothing on the data. Once we get to the realm of scientific data, i don't care for philosophy anymore, im not going to need equally strong evidence in data to change my opinion, this is not the case in something like meta-ethics, philosophy wont change my mind.
Folk wisdom about U.S. presidential politics holds that the taller of the two major-party candidates always wins or almost always wins since the advent of the televised presidential debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States
literally just look at this shit and tell me you seriously think height only matters in dating. Why are tall men so overrepresented in the white house? why are they so overrepresented in CEO positions?
And yes, your race also matters as i pointed out in the debate, its going to be objectively harder being a 5'4 indian man as opposed to a 5'4 white man.
It goes beyond charming people, it goes into how people perceive you too. Why are almost no US presidents in US history below 6 feet tall? Life is going to be a uphill battle not just in dating but in school and the workplace too for shorter and uglier people.
Why dont we talk about the suicide rate of short men? whats the reason for that, whats the reason for the higher substance abuse and less money, even when all known factors are controlled for, this is why they say "genetically determined height" not just height. Rules out nutrition and environment factors.
If you want to argue ugliness and how "subjective" it is, why dont you talk about the studies i provided on height, since how tall someone isnt subjective.
You appear to be brainstorming about human origins from the top of your head, making assumption after assumption based on your knowledge of human history thus far. I've not been tricked into anything. I'm simply looking at the data unbiasedly and coming to conclusions as I do with everything else. I'm not an emotional thinker. I have no reason to believe anything of what you just said over the studies I've read, as they're currently the better evidence. They said they accounted for all known variables. I have to take them at their word until better evidence comes out to the contrary. Girls desire hot men, yet they were forced to be with the guy with the most power in the past. Yet they want the hot guy sexually. Human history is naturally hypergamous. Your argument only stands by the fact that men literally oppressed women so that they wouldn't be hypergamous with the same men. Then your other arguments on nutrition, growing up, etc., the studies talk about and account for. That's why they say "genetically" determined height, not simply height.
I already know that men respond more visual to sexual stimulus, yet that's that. Sexual stimulus, this does not deny the data that women are just as picky as men looks wise, and more so financially and other ways.
Theres not an objective measure of attractiveness, no. Yet its really not that subjective, there's studies proving this. Most people are attracted to the same people. Have you heard of the golden ratio? looks are not that subjective.
There is a correlation between being ugly and having an averagely lower income. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc. especially on the suicide rates for shorter men in Sweden.
It's not true that men are more look-oriented than women. It's equal, actually. Just because you've seen pretty girls with "ugly" guys does not mean she thinks they're ugly. How can you say men are more looks-orientated than women when the only thing most men deem necessary for a woman to not be looks-wise is being overweight? If you're 5'4 or below, 95% of women will not date you. I'm here simply to talk about the blackpill objectively. What incels do with that knowledge is not something I think about when I'm debating it. I'd agree that being sexist because of these statistics is wrong. We have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors because most men did not reproduce. Women are objectively more selective and picky than men. You can disagree with that, but you'd be objectively wrong.
statistics absolutely do matter if you're in the bottom 20% of men, statistically speaking we have 2x more female ancestors than male ones because the top men would have multiple women at one time. Half of all men failed to reproduce while most females didnt. This hypergamy remains true in the modern day.
I agree, if someone wants a gf i think its fine to want that, even look for it. Guys who are not so blessed physically though i think shouldn't become attached to getting a gf and although they can still look for a gf they should probably spend more time on other stuff.
Yeah, id agree. Some people are best off not trying and focusing on other things. This is statistically true, no point worrying about it, swallow the white pill and become a wizard of pure stoic wisdom and if you happen to land a gf along the way then great. I think for some people you have to just focus on other things and accept that you may not get a gf.
Most blackpilled incels dont believe looks are all that matters, they just argue that its the most important think by far. I agree with that, dont listen to the articles, people dont like incels because they become radicalised and take their anger out on society, yet if you lurk in their threads theres much truth to what they say
just because some people can survive jumping off a mountain, doesn't make it the rule. Some short men balding men may get girls, yet they're the exception not the rule. Just as some people may survive jumping out of an aeroplane, most wont. To use anecdotes about seeing one short man with a harem, to justify anyone being able to get a girlfriend is a gross negligence of the scientific data.
Well i wouldn't say im that blackpilled. Id say ones looks are 70% of attraction though. Your personality can somewhat influence how attractive someone views you, if you're sub 5 to a woman and you have a great personality, the most you can do is make it so she doesn't find you physically repulsive or "passable" based on your appearance. You can do this through personality. If she thinks you're a 6 yet you have a great personality you can get her to see you as a 7-7.5 physically. Looks are very important, more than people like to think, your personality influences your looks, yet your looks also influence how people perceive your personality too. It goes both ways, ultimately you have to reach a certain threshold looks wise before a woman would consider you dateable. If you don't reach it, you just wont be able to get with her. statistically speaking if a man is 5'4 he has to earn 200,000 more than a man who is 5'11 to be considered equally sexually desirable. If looks didn't matter, everyone would be bisexual.
Yes, and racial discrimination STILL exists in the workplace despite laws. I say we ought to have laws on anti discrimination for weight and height too.
92 short pupils and 117 controls who are of average stature matched for age and sex with a mean age range of 14.7 (13.4–15.7) years were given a questionnaire and so were parents and teachers to know how many pupils get bullied or perpetrate bullying. The study found that short boys were more likely to be bullied than boys of average stature, were significantly more likely to be upset when bullied, and were less likely to perpetrate bullying.
Voss, Jean; Mulligan (March 4, 2000). "Bullying in school: are short pupils at risk? Questionnaire study in a cohort". The BMJ. 320 (7235): 612–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7235.612. ISSN 0959-8138. PMID 10698879.
Re et al. (2013) performed a review of existing evidence showing facial structure predicts perceptions of leadership capacity and outcomes of corporate and electoral success. They note an abundance of evidence showing characteristics such as fWHR, facial maturity (whether someone is "baby-faced"), and facial masculinity can all play a role.
They performed an experiment to test whether perceptions of height based on facial features influenced these factors as well. They found that facial maturity and perceived height from facial structure had the strongest influence on whether a man was perceived to be a good potential leader. When subjects were given the ability to modify faces to improve their leadership appearance, they enhanced facial cues of increased height.
50% of the top 100 Company CEO's are 6 foot plus despite being less than 10% of the male population, more brutal evidence that height equals leadership ability in the eyes of society.
Researchers in Sweden surveyed government data including 79% of all men born in Sweden in 1950–1981 to identify health outcomes for these men. They found that every extra 5 cm of height reduced suicide rates by 9%, such that the tallest men had half the suicide rate of shorter men.
They suggest several reasons for this difference. They note that shorter men tend to end up with lower socioeconomic status as they grow up, irrespective of their childhood social class. Additionally, as women judge shorter men negatively, they are therefore less likely to marry, which generally protects against suicide. An association between shorter height and higher risk of substance abuse was also found.
Magnusson PKE, Gunnell D, Tynelius P, Davey Smith G, Rasmussen F. 2005. Strong Inverse Association Between Height and Suicide in a Large Cohort of Swedish Men: Evidence of Early Life Origins of Suicidal Behavior? Am J Psychiatry. 162: 1373–1375.
shmuck
You're a waffler brother.
failed to address the issue of free will? i literally said multiple times it isn't a free will debate, its assuming free will exists....
I do not believe you're one day over the age of 17 rationalmadman.
The sense of free will is indeed necessary for happiness in an individual, theres studies showing that once your desires for food, water etc have been met. What next is on the totem poll is the desire for freedom.
No one seems to like indulging in hypotheticals, allergic.
saying there is subjective goodness to oneself based on their nature and recognising or believing no objective goodness are two separate concepts. Its not a contradiction, I've become convinced that DDO debaters are better than the debaters here.
You didnt understand it as you don't know the philosophy behind the argument i put forth, i imagine if you talked about Kant and synthetic a priori's it would appear to be word salad to them too. In fact thats probably word salad to you, i bet you dont know what that means either.
Not a free will debate Benjamin, you literally have no idea about the philosophy i talked about in that round. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying its some pseudo intellectual word salad. Its not, its a real philosophy. "no clear argument format" brother, you just didn't understand it, that's all.
Benjamin, this is not a free will debate brother. I said that in the previous round.
yeah, they have high suicide rates. That's not wholly because of the blackpill though, i imagine it plays into it however.
Just look at south korean men, they're all very blackpilled. They realise how much their looks matter, in korea you even have to put a picture of your face on your job applications, at least you used too.
Your concerns are correct, it is a dangerous ideology. Its very nihilistic, it is however, true. Women recognise this truth and they take it in their stride, i think pretending your looks dont matter if your a man is the cause of all this destruction, yet if people were honest, that they do matter then we would know what to expect and be able to adjust to it, just as women do.
You should be upset about any unfairness in life, actually. We don't like unequal pay. That's not to say we should be enraged by it. I see nothing wrong with recognising the blackpill as true, if you are a very mentally and emotionally developed person. Almost all women are blackpilled for instance, they recognise their looks are vital. We dont see them shooting up schools, a big part of this is because men are told our looks dont matter.
Ok, well there we go. You said the blackpill wasn't true, we now agree it is. When i opened the debate my main intent for the debate was to argue looks are more important than personality when it comes to dating, although i probably assumed too much knowledge. so it took a different turn than i was expecting.
To rationalise that these men who go on these killings sprees are just lunatics, is a negation of their environment, it doesnt solve the problem of how to stop this. Being willfully ignorant about it isnt going to make it go away. I agree they're full of hatred, they're sexists. This is not good, yet we must look at the things which make them this way objectively.
You havent proved the blackpill wrong, all you've done is shown me links to studies showing a link between academic performance and wealth. Thats obvious.
The fact rich people have it the easiest is not a negation of the black pill. I wouldn't deny that, growing up with a two parent household and being at least middle class are the biggest determiners of success. Yet your looks still matter, especially if you want to escape poverty, only one look at tiktok shows the vanity of people.
Reverse causation? these studies get peer reviewed studied by sociologists, all kinds of researchers, any complaints you think of im sure they have thought of themselves and discussed it. I don't believe your reverse triangle, the researchers dont, so i dont.
More men are becoming increasingly lonely, this is objectively true. More men are going without wives, lovers. Not that im an incel myself, im not. I do however see where the movement has came from this psychology if we look at the data.
That's true. We must check our biases and sadly trends show people have a bias towards tall men as leaders. This is why education on this is important, this is why inceldom has skyrocketed recently and we see men shooting up schools over it. We didnt see this 30 years ago, yet if you look at my round 1 argument, the stastics since 2008 make everything clear, it shows where this movement has come from.
You're literally arguing rich people are bigger, stronger and smarter than non rich people on average genetically. This is really incorrect, wealth within a family usually only lasts for two generations before it is lost.
We can just look to politicians who didnt grow up in political familes, such as joe biden. Hes a farm boy! hes still 6 foot though, hes now 5'11 from age.
Give me data showing that rich people are taller not because of a privileged upbringing but because of genetics.
"In the last one hundred years in US history the tallest presidential candidates received more popular votes in 88% of the elections, and won 84% of the time."
You're literally just assuming all of this, you have no data to support the idea that people born richer are genetically more prone to being taller. Literally just 200 years ago the average dutch male was 5'4, you're making this up off the top of your head as you go on as it sounds right.
You cannot deny the facts, the empirical data. your philosophical inquiries have nothing on the data. Once we get to the realm of scientific data, i don't care for philosophy anymore, im not going to need equally strong evidence in data to change my opinion, this is not the case in something like meta-ethics, philosophy wont change my mind.
Folk wisdom about U.S. presidential politics holds that the taller of the two major-party candidates always wins or almost always wins since the advent of the televised presidential debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States
literally just look at this shit and tell me you seriously think height only matters in dating. Why are tall men so overrepresented in the white house? why are they so overrepresented in CEO positions?
Trump would not of become president if he was 5'4.
And yes, your race also matters as i pointed out in the debate, its going to be objectively harder being a 5'4 indian man as opposed to a 5'4 white man.
I doubt you would be disagreeing with me at all, if i switched nothing but changed it from looks but to race.
It goes beyond charming people, it goes into how people perceive you too. Why are almost no US presidents in US history below 6 feet tall? Life is going to be a uphill battle not just in dating but in school and the workplace too for shorter and uglier people.
Why dont we talk about the suicide rate of short men? whats the reason for that, whats the reason for the higher substance abuse and less money, even when all known factors are controlled for, this is why they say "genetically determined height" not just height. Rules out nutrition and environment factors.
If you want to argue ugliness and how "subjective" it is, why dont you talk about the studies i provided on height, since how tall someone isnt subjective.
You appear to be brainstorming about human origins from the top of your head, making assumption after assumption based on your knowledge of human history thus far. I've not been tricked into anything. I'm simply looking at the data unbiasedly and coming to conclusions as I do with everything else. I'm not an emotional thinker. I have no reason to believe anything of what you just said over the studies I've read, as they're currently the better evidence. They said they accounted for all known variables. I have to take them at their word until better evidence comes out to the contrary. Girls desire hot men, yet they were forced to be with the guy with the most power in the past. Yet they want the hot guy sexually. Human history is naturally hypergamous. Your argument only stands by the fact that men literally oppressed women so that they wouldn't be hypergamous with the same men. Then your other arguments on nutrition, growing up, etc., the studies talk about and account for. That's why they say "genetically" determined height, not simply height.
Yes you can take it to that comment section. You can aid him, i really don't care.
I already know that men respond more visual to sexual stimulus, yet that's that. Sexual stimulus, this does not deny the data that women are just as picky as men looks wise, and more so financially and other ways.
Theres not an objective measure of attractiveness, no. Yet its really not that subjective, there's studies proving this. Most people are attracted to the same people. Have you heard of the golden ratio? looks are not that subjective.
There is a correlation between being ugly and having an averagely lower income. The statistics I used take into account a person's starting socio-economic starting place, their education, etc. especially on the suicide rates for shorter men in Sweden.
It's not true that men are more look-oriented than women. It's equal, actually. Just because you've seen pretty girls with "ugly" guys does not mean she thinks they're ugly. How can you say men are more looks-orientated than women when the only thing most men deem necessary for a woman to not be looks-wise is being overweight? If you're 5'4 or below, 95% of women will not date you. I'm here simply to talk about the blackpill objectively. What incels do with that knowledge is not something I think about when I'm debating it. I'd agree that being sexist because of these statistics is wrong. We have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors because most men did not reproduce. Women are objectively more selective and picky than men. You can disagree with that, but you'd be objectively wrong.
What would you say is the weakness in my blackpill argument?
statistics absolutely do matter if you're in the bottom 20% of men, statistically speaking we have 2x more female ancestors than male ones because the top men would have multiple women at one time. Half of all men failed to reproduce while most females didnt. This hypergamy remains true in the modern day.
I agree, if someone wants a gf i think its fine to want that, even look for it. Guys who are not so blessed physically though i think shouldn't become attached to getting a gf and although they can still look for a gf they should probably spend more time on other stuff.
Yeah, id agree. Some people are best off not trying and focusing on other things. This is statistically true, no point worrying about it, swallow the white pill and become a wizard of pure stoic wisdom and if you happen to land a gf along the way then great. I think for some people you have to just focus on other things and accept that you may not get a gf.
being attractive isnt actually that subjective, ill prove it next round if benjy responds.
Most blackpilled incels dont believe looks are all that matters, they just argue that its the most important think by far. I agree with that, dont listen to the articles, people dont like incels because they become radicalised and take their anger out on society, yet if you lurk in their threads theres much truth to what they say
just because some people can survive jumping off a mountain, doesn't make it the rule. Some short men balding men may get girls, yet they're the exception not the rule. Just as some people may survive jumping out of an aeroplane, most wont. To use anecdotes about seeing one short man with a harem, to justify anyone being able to get a girlfriend is a gross negligence of the scientific data.
Well i wouldn't say im that blackpilled. Id say ones looks are 70% of attraction though. Your personality can somewhat influence how attractive someone views you, if you're sub 5 to a woman and you have a great personality, the most you can do is make it so she doesn't find you physically repulsive or "passable" based on your appearance. You can do this through personality. If she thinks you're a 6 yet you have a great personality you can get her to see you as a 7-7.5 physically. Looks are very important, more than people like to think, your personality influences your looks, yet your looks also influence how people perceive your personality too. It goes both ways, ultimately you have to reach a certain threshold looks wise before a woman would consider you dateable. If you don't reach it, you just wont be able to get with her. statistically speaking if a man is 5'4 he has to earn 200,000 more than a man who is 5'11 to be considered equally sexually desirable. If looks didn't matter, everyone would be bisexual.
Yes, and racial discrimination STILL exists in the workplace despite laws. I say we ought to have laws on anti discrimination for weight and height too.
92 short pupils and 117 controls who are of average stature matched for age and sex with a mean age range of 14.7 (13.4–15.7) years were given a questionnaire and so were parents and teachers to know how many pupils get bullied or perpetrate bullying. The study found that short boys were more likely to be bullied than boys of average stature, were significantly more likely to be upset when bullied, and were less likely to perpetrate bullying.
Voss, Jean; Mulligan (March 4, 2000). "Bullying in school: are short pupils at risk? Questionnaire study in a cohort". The BMJ. 320 (7235): 612–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7235.612. ISSN 0959-8138. PMID 10698879.
Re et al. (2013) performed a review of existing evidence showing facial structure predicts perceptions of leadership capacity and outcomes of corporate and electoral success. They note an abundance of evidence showing characteristics such as fWHR, facial maturity (whether someone is "baby-faced"), and facial masculinity can all play a role.
They performed an experiment to test whether perceptions of height based on facial features influenced these factors as well. They found that facial maturity and perceived height from facial structure had the strongest influence on whether a man was perceived to be a good potential leader. When subjects were given the ability to modify faces to improve their leadership appearance, they enhanced facial cues of increased height.
50% of the top 100 Company CEO's are 6 foot plus despite being less than 10% of the male population, more brutal evidence that height equals leadership ability in the eyes of society.
Researchers in Sweden surveyed government data including 79% of all men born in Sweden in 1950–1981 to identify health outcomes for these men. They found that every extra 5 cm of height reduced suicide rates by 9%, such that the tallest men had half the suicide rate of shorter men.
They suggest several reasons for this difference. They note that shorter men tend to end up with lower socioeconomic status as they grow up, irrespective of their childhood social class. Additionally, as women judge shorter men negatively, they are therefore less likely to marry, which generally protects against suicide. An association between shorter height and higher risk of substance abuse was also found.
Magnusson PKE, Gunnell D, Tynelius P, Davey Smith G, Rasmussen F. 2005. Strong Inverse Association Between Height and Suicide in a Large Cohort of Swedish Men: Evidence of Early Life Origins of Suicidal Behavior? Am J Psychiatry. 162: 1373–1375.