- Joined
- Oct 5, 2024
- Messages
- 4,920
- Solutions
- 22
- Online time
- 12d 16h
- Reputation
- 17,647
We are no different to the wild chimps if it's not for what is, arguably, our greatest achievement.. The scientific method.. And the most apt way to summarize it is :
'If even one valid observation contradicts the theory, the theory must be rejected or revised.
No amount of confirmations can prove a theory right—but one contradiction can prove it wrong.'
1. INDENT No. 1 : No Pill exists in realism, even the Blackpill
Dividing all complex human mating behavior into 3-4 convenient boxes is perhaps the most clear proof to the fact that .org and .com's collective IQ is in the double digits. Considering the unpredictability in human behavior, further made more complex due to contextual, cultural and socio-economic factors brings about a simple conclusion. A one size fits for all theory is impossible and disrespectful to human nuances. Bruteforcing boxes after seeing a couple of scientific articles, concluding 'brow trust meh if your not chad its over', is not science it's cartoon. It's not about 'exception don't make the rules' but even one exception, breaks the rules. The BP and similar frameworks claim to be rooted in cold, hard truth. But real science requires falsifiability. If a theory is truly scientific, it must be able to not break under the weight of contradictory evidence. BP thinking fails this basic test. It presents deterministic rule like “only chad can slay bro, only MTN+ can find love” and then ignores the countless real life stories that contradict them. It labels the exceptions as copes all the fucking time. But If your theory can’t handle a few genuine outliers, it isn’t a theory. It’s a cage.
2. INDENT No. 2 : Misogynistic cope is reactionary and weak in it's nature
Bateman's principle promised to answer a huge question in biology in the previous century. It was to ascertain the reason of a very common observation seen throughout the animal kingdom, The fact that males are generally promiscuous and females are picky. It states most simply :
'Biologically, males can reproduce often with little cost, but females invest far more. Eggs, pregnancy, child rearing. So evolution pressures females to be selective. One poor choice can cost her everything; one good choice can secure genetic success.'
So yes, female hypergamy exists, but to expect women to not be hypergamous is to expect for her to act against the evolutionary interest of her progeny and own self. That’s not realism, that's delusion. If your defense for misogyny is females not being retarded, then you're just being childish. Like the fox who couldn't reach the 'bitter' grapes.
Criticizing women for doing what nature requires them to do is like blaming gravity for pulling objects down. A woman who doesn’t select carefully isn’t enlightened, she's (from a biological standpoint) retarded.
3. INDENT No. 3 : 'Muh trust me browww jooz control the world!'
The idea that Jooz "control the world" because a few Jewish individuals hold positions of power is one of most retarded shit I hear commonly on these forums by parroting invalids. Yes, some Jewish elites pursue power, just like powerful people from every background. But to leap from that to blaming the average Jewish shopkeeper in New York is fucking stupid. Mass antisemitism does no good. Do you retards know who actually holds the most global power? Multinational corporations, oil families, tech oligarchs, state actors like China, Saudi Arabia, etc.. Power today is decentralized, opaque, and completely economic.
Believing “Jooz run the world” is a classic self-fulfilling bias: you already assume it’s true, so every time you see a Jewish name in a high place, it confirms your worldview, while you ignore the countless non Jews in the same rooms. That’s not insight, you're just a r****d whose more prone to believe in conspiracies (direct, scientifically proven link with belief in conspiracies and low IQ btw).
Last edited:
