>>84586945
Women don't know how good they have it. If a guy wants to date them, then he actually likes them. While if a woman is willing to date a man, but would never have casual sex with him, then she likely isn't even into him. So as a guy you're forced to vet women via hooking up with them first. Lest you become a betabux chump who gets taken advantage of. Which sucks as a guy who finds the idea of casual sex disgusting.

>>84586988
That is still men getting more of women's time vs the other way around sooo

>>84586945
>I'm confused, do they think hook ups are normal for ugly men as well?
literally says in your screenshot that both men demanding hookups and saying this ugly woman was too ugly to be seen in public but not too ugly to fuck in secret were also ugly

>>84587002
Is it? A man having sex with you and bouncing will waste your afternoon. A woman who doesn't desire you but marries you could waste decades of your life and an enormous amount of money.

>>84587013
"Waste" my ass

>>84587013
oh no, someone wants to spend all their time with you and commit to you for the rest of your natural lives. how horrible.

>>84586945
Why are you informing your worldview using posts from mentally ill, terminally online retards on reddit?

>>84586988
>Which sucks as a guy who finds the idea of casual sex disgusting
The living definition of sour grapes. "Oh yeah I'm really disgusted by that thing I can't get. I'm actually so virtuous because I can't- I mean don't get any pussy."

>>84587024
do you mean the views espoused by the mentally ill, terminally online egotists of the internet might not be the best thing to base my opinions of all of humanity on?

>>84587015
It is a waste. Instead of spending that time with someone who's passionate and intimate you're with a leech who merely tolerates you.
>>84587017
The woman doing this isn't demonstrating any form of love for you by doing this. She merely recognizes she can't do better and that the clock is ticking. It's a purely pragmatic decision on her part.

>>84586945
whatever. ever been asked out by a fat bitch? an obese coworker who thinks she can sincerely have a relationship with you and be seen in public with you? that's far less reasonable than what attention she's getting. i wish i could have a hookup with a respectable 5/10, which is most likely what's going on here.

>>84587029
Yeah I would probably be quite dubious about the things that they say. Personally.

>>84587030
shockingly i was not advocating for living with someone who despises you in that post but rather rolling my digital eyes at the idea that a marriage is worse than a pump and dump.

>>84587024
>The living definition of sour grapes.
Not everybody is as sociosexually unrestricted as you are. Some people are more introverted and asocial, believe it or not.

>>84587042
it is worse for a male. there is no winning in marriage.

>>84587042
>but rather rolling my digital eyes at the idea that a marriage is worse than a pump and dump
If you get married to the wrong person, then it is indeed worse than a pump and dump.

>>84587045
Married men literally live longer while the inverse is true for women so shut the fuck up whiner ugly scrote

>>84587039
gee whiz, i hope everyone outside in the real offline world does not have a chronic case of malignant narcissistic personality disorder and pathological psychopathy. sure would suck if the only options in the world are 1. insane people online whom you can mostly ignore but do nothing but attempt to make everyone else have a worse life to feel better about how miserable they are and 2. insane people offline who nurture psychosexual obsessions and whose predatory possessiveness is handwaved away by every normie in the vicinity because even acknowledging it might involve, like, a nagging moral obligation to do something if they want to keep their internal self-perception of being a good person

the psychos online win this one. unfortunately.

>>84587024
>The living definition of sour grapes

You're a complete moron.

>>84586945
Men want sex, women want relationship

>>84587045
okay. why?
>>84587048
fair enough. marriage often seems miserable for both parties and no one is mature during a divorce. maybe i am too pilled off reading whiny redditors bitching about how their wife is abusive for only sucking their cock 6 times a day instead of 7 to take complaints about a lack of desire as seriously as others.

>>84587057
what does monky want?

File: chief_pepe.jpg (119 KB, 611x605)

119 KB JPG

>>84586945
Sorry foids, men aren't vending machines you can just keep putting sex coins into until a relationship comes out

>>84587037
How obese are we talkin here?

>>84587051
>Married men literally live longer
they don't. It's a myth.
>live longer
who said this is a good thing in the first place? subjective much?
>the inverse is true for women
women use to live longer on average if they want to. but just like most males, some females simply don't want to live a long shitty life.
>so shut the fuck up whiner ugly scrote
projecting much. I'm just stating facts. marriage is ass and there is no point for a sane male to ever get married in the 21st century.

>>84587065
kekd havent seen the vending machine one in forever, nice job anon

>>84587072
Why are your first three rebuttals all centered around the idea living long is bad, not actually happening, and women can live longer if they want to but they just do not.
>women use to live longer on average if they want to
Legitimately, ESL? Your post is incoherent and I want to understand and talk to you.

>>84587063
big banana

>>84587072
? do you want to die early, anon, or are you making a point about quantity v quality of life expectancy?

File: 1776205526506.png (115 KB, 1080x970)

115 KB PNG

>>84586945
Men are choosy too

>>84587083
of course monky want BIG banana. why monky never want average banana, huh? normal banana? medium-to-slightly-smaller-than-average-and-bit-curved-but-still-work-good banana? monky only ever want banana perfectly yellow, perfectly smooth, min 7 inch long 3.5 inch girth, slightly capered tip and gentle curve upward. and monky ALWAYS want peeled banana, never unpeeled. fuck monky. selfish vapid whores.

>>84587062
>okay. why?
what do you mean why there is no winning? Because everything societally, judicially, systematically, systemicly, and so on, is heavily and unfairly skewed towards females. The risks and the investment both simply aren't worth it, even purely mathetically.
If you an adult male, like myself, what is even the point of a marriage? If we were supposed to build a life and something better together, then this paritcular ship has sailed at least a quarter of a century ago. I simply don't need a female in my life. Imagine throwing everything I've built for myself and have because of some random whore. lmao.

>>84587093
Well if you dunmp your cump into anything other than Stacey as a man you lose so

File: 1691595142742351.jpg (1.32 MB, 1382x1684)

1.32 MB JPG

>>84586945
>Complained about never have a relationship, about how guys say it is easy for women to get men and have sex.
>She ended up putting in literally the tiniest amount of effort and got a bf. Then a year or two later they aren't together anymore and she claims to have done a fair amount of hooking up after him.
>Women are lonely because they don't put in the tiniest amount of effort.
I know the dates in the image are fucked up idk what the guy who made this image did, all you need to know is the posts go from top to bottom chronologically

>>84587103
what does this random attentionwhore have to do with ops random attentionwhore getting pumped by uggchad

>>84586945
>do they think hook ups are normal for ugly men as well?
yes. women are generally ignorant.

>>84587103
She's smart it took me almost getting raped to scare me off hooking up for good she realized it before she got raped thank god

File: sad.jpg (35 KB, 550x413)

35 KB JPG

>>84587097
>fuck monky. selfish vapid whores.

>>84587099
okay. personally i am not planning on getting married either and do not date nor have sex. was not trying to sway you any particular way. just wanted to know why you have apparently unilaterally decided marriage as a concept is completely stacked against you. so if everything is unfairly skewed towards women, how would you, if you were godemperor for a day, change the world to make it as fair as you would consider preferable? what would a society in which you felt optimistic about marriage, having a family, et al look like?

>>84587082
>the idea living long is bad,
the qol diminishes drastically. and at some point you don't want to do it anymore. plus, getting fed with up with life in general.
>I want to understand and talk to you.
I've seen both females and males end it, late, in their 90's, because they were absolutely done with it. Now with the somehwat legalized euthanasia in places like the Netherlands and Canada, I see males and females saying that they're done with this bullshit and turning the lights off. This bullshit that life is somehow great, valuable, and totally worth it is just a lie. For shit eating retards to believe in.
>>84587084
>quantity v quality of life expectancy
that's objective.
>? do you want to die early, anon
already too late for me, lol. I've probably lived over half of my life at this point. I'm not impressed. I would have been just fine without a life too.

File: 1699829231994858.webm (3.88 MB, 720x1280)

3.88 MB WEBM

>>84586945
Maybe she just has the 'tism

>>84587113
man how much would it suck to be raped for your first time? can you imagine? what if you were a female khhv having saved it for one man for your entire teenage years only to find out he whored around in your absence and was simping for another woman cucking him with her bf, and then you cried about it, someone heard you were kissless at your first party you went to to try to forget, they drugged you and threw you around like a doll between strangers and then you got gangraped that night? and then woke up to a message from that man you loved telling you you were a ruined disgusting slut and he wanted to chain you up, bash your head in, and fuck you to death? wouldnt that just fucking suck dog balls

>>84587122
human immortality and controlled procreation with gene editing only in a lab. sterilized humans who can hedonistically fuck all they want. Also, I'd make AI take over as this particular inferior species has proven time and again to be unfit to manage the civilization.

File: takesonetoknowone.png (358 KB, 640x426)

358 KB PNG

>>84587115
cry about it to your cloth mother, macaques ass bitch

>>84587150
you can hedonistically fuck all you want now if you sterilize yourself, assuming you have not already.
>AI
how are you going to avoid a hal problem with your robot overlord? who is computing the death algorithms? are you subscribing to the rokos basilisk theory of inevitability and trying to avoid an i have no mouth scenario?

>>84587150
Civilization is defined by humanity. What civilization could an artificial intelligence create? Nothing human, certainly nothing humane.

>>84587165
>you can hedonistically fuck all you want now
true, but I don't want to.
>AI thought experiments
the hypothetical implies than an omnipotent godemperor creates an omnipotent AI devoid of problems. AI doesn't rule over humans as a king either, it simply prevents human exploitation and humans having power over other humans. something like that.
the focus is not on the greed, power, and other human bullshit (nature), because an AI would solve the shortage of all resources by using robots to harvest and mine throughout the universe.

>>84587129
i dont agree with your assertion that valuing life as an abstract is only for shit eating retards (though that is certainly many of them) but can admit euthanasia is pretty appealing. i think voluntary euthanasia would solve many of our societal problems, as would greater control over population in general to increase quality of life. fairly certain this is, aside from the views espoused by the naive and the catholic-minded, a pretty median point of view. the problem seems to come with implementation and having coercive variables. euthanasia is a form of supreme bodily autonomy in the abstract as is all form of suicide, but even aside from the mitigating factors of mental illness with the latter, how could you ever implement voluntary euthanasia in a way that doesnt have some sort of financial incentive for people to die? we already see this with MAID in canada, specifically with the chronically physically or mentally ill who are considered a burden on the states coffers. whether they are or not, speaking from an economic viewpoint, is a matter of objectivity and unrelated to moral posturing about the sanctity of life, but how can a voluntary exit be considered actually voluntary if the executioner has a financial incentive to set to it that you die and die swiftly?

>>84587015
>>84587017
definitely women posters. always acting like your time and energy is more valuable when you objectively lose less than the man, and the man also loses other things because of the hoops he has to jump through. eg money
>inb4 muh biological clock
i do not give a shit because women themselves dont.

>>84587171
>Civilization is defined by humanity.
civilization is the development. what % of humans develop shit, realistically. 3%? 1.5%? 0.07% of all humans? Nothing would change in that regard.
>What civilization could an artificial intelligence create?
all kinds and sorts of progress, esp. in cooperation with the few exceptional humans. AI already analyzes vasts amounts of data to help humans make an informed, sensible decision.
>Nothing human, certainly nothing humane.
what the fuck does this sentence even mean? wanna suck on your own balls too, you arrogant pretentious cocksucker? you apes are overrated anyway. LLM are already more reasonable and "intelligent", without being intelligent, than most humans are. Stop coping, you're just an irrelevant, temporary, highly imprerfet, and quite retarded species. Just one out of billions and trillions species in the universe.

>>84587183
>the hypothetical implies than an omnipotent godemperor creates an omnipotent AI devoid of problems
actually it was just
>how would you, if you were godemperor for a day, change the world to make it as fair as you would consider preferable? what would a society in which you felt optimistic about marriage, having a family, et al look like?

either way,
>AI doesn't rule over humans as a king either
seems antithetical to
>I'd make AI take over as this particular inferior species has proven time and again to be unfit to manage the civilization

do you think the root of all greed, power, and other human bullshit (nature) is simply competition over resources then? if ai would solve this by solving resource shortage, why would it need specific implementation go prevent humans from having power over one another? unless you mean purely from an exploitative economic angle, which would naturally include physical, sexual, and reproductive exploitation as well. still, humanity tends to find ways to express its apparent core sadism even in times of peace and prosperity. that has always been the more nihilistic-pilling aspect of human bullshit for me. ai is created by those same humans. i see no possible way ai would be able to function without their various predilections leaking through, unless it was somehow self evolving. which just leads back to the thought experiments and the likelihood of an ai becoming sentient enough to be disgusted in the same way and choose to punish or eradicate humanity out of obsolesce (or malevolence, if you want to view it that way) or ascending in some way as to become completely disinterested in the fate of humanity entirely. in both scenarios we are basically just rehashing various interpretations of how an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent would view a fallible species from time immemorial. i wonder who it is that prays for god to remember his love for humanity just because of how the alienation isolates him. who cries for god?

>>84587192
Can you identify every female poster in this thread.

>>84587187
nature never cared. None of the mutations and issues are *new*, medical technology, high qol, and the ability to keep all those people alive are.
Question is: should we in the first place? Is it really moral, compassionate, ethical, all that, to condemn a being to the highly imperfect existence full of suffering? Selfish fucks always do shit to feel good about themselves, where is the real empathy? A horse with broken legs is euthanized, because making it suffer existence as a crippled being is rightfully seen as worse than letting it die. Why don't we extend the same courtesy to human beings? If a human being isn't it aware, if it is a vegetable, forever, then I don't think the constitutional fundamentals of being an individual should apply. maybe it's a question of consciousness.
>financial question
plenty of partially disabled people provide for themselves in the first world countries. and/or their families do. So it requires a case by case basis calculation and projection to find out whether a disabled person is a net negative or a positive on the tax system over decades.

>>84586945
Men can get fucked by ugly men too

>>84587223
didn't check. but these are textbook hivemind posts. zero awareness, where they act like their mating strategy is, conveniently, the correct one and shame anything else not to her benefit as wrong

>>84587202
Interesting breakdown near the end. You are not an AI, anon, no matter how much you may wish to be. There was no moral judgement in that post despite you seeming to have projected some sort of dubious intent. My point was that civilization as a concept is defined by what humans, ie humanity, decide constitutes civility and progress and how they choose to structure their society they must live in and contribute to. An AI by definition does neither. Whatever an AI might decide is a proper civilization would be drastically different from how a human would construct it by your own definition as humanity is prone to cover up errors in judgment to protect the ego rather than remedying them for optimization, a tendency towards fear and doubt that drive antisocial behavior such as resource hogging for fear of a drought or famine, and motivated by emotional sentimentality. By definition it would be neither human nor humane as optimization for efficiency in, at the very least, resource utilization would quickly lead into brutal utilitarianism and the elimination of useless eaters, if not completely those whom are suboptimal producers. Frankly whether an AI is capable of not getting into paradoxical philosophical quandaries with itself and sucking off its own e-cigarette French style is a pertinent underlying question here at the heart of all this overwrought existentialist circlejerking.

>>84587245
Okay so you cant actually tell

>>84587245
pattern recognition on lock anon-chan desu ne

>>84586945
Men fuck anything. Its dehumanizing that you are only ok to have sex with

>>84587240
This. If you want sex, have it with other males. It most likely feels as appealing to you as sex with most men feels to women

I cant get fucked at all and ive got the advantage of the pedo edmographic. fakecels exist as well you're just being selective and retarded on purpose so you dont have to admit you aren't unique and special because you're a man

>>84587221
>unless it was somehow self evolving
it will be. that's what intelligence is.
>which just leads back to the thought experiments
no, those are mere speculations based on self-biases of a pathetic, barely intelligent species. Intelligence is in no way equal to destruction of humans.
>do you think the root of all greed, power, and other human bullshit (nature) is simply competition over resources then?
the root is in the fact that humans are apes who are barely more sentient and a little more intelligent species than dolphins. (not every human too) That is where we're at.
>what would a society in which you felt optimistic about marriage, having a family, et al look like?
the point is/was, that these concepts have outlived themslves and are out of date.
>why would it need specific implementation go prevent humans from having power over one another?
because as is evident by the historical data and the current state of the world, humans are willing to destroy the progress, the future, the humans in order to feel good about themselves and to keep an irrelevant crumb of temporary power they have.
So, best example: technologies are being banned, hidden, halted, and prevented from development simply because some retarded dinosaur has some subjective beliefs or is afraid of losing the influence. It is evident that religion has always done it, church in europe, dark ages - prime example. However, people mistakenly believe that shit has changed. As ancient greeks have pointed out: humans do not change, esp evolve that fast. And so you have retarded boomers who were/are against the internet wishing they were the spanish inquisition. And then you have boomers in positions of power who sitll think it's the 18th fucking century.

TL;DR: Fuck humans, there should be not one (few) human(s) deciding what to do next as a species.

>>84587013
>caring about being loved back
marital rape is not a real thing

>>84587230
nature is brutal and unyielding, but human life is not defined solely by natural evolutionary strategy. you yourself just listed medical technology, high qol, and life extension as examples of how humanity has built onto what nature has provided. we are not disagreeing on the concept of euthanasia being a valid and often preferable choice. i have already stated i agree with your premise and your sentiment. what i have noted as a major concern of mine, and of many other people who otherwise agree with both of us, is the element of coercion present in these sort of matters. whether you want to negate that by saying everything is coercive or manipulative to some extent is your business, but a corollary is supporting capital punishment in theory as an effective deterrent but not in practice because of the genuine possibility for an innocent to be wrongly convicted and executed, or for the simple practical matter of the time and money spent making sure an innocent is NOT as a prisoner waits on death row when it would simply be cheaper to house them indefinitely and profit from their prison labor.
>Is it really moral, compassionate, ethical, all that, to condemn a being to the highly imperfect existence full of suffering?
well, isnt that at the heart of the entire question of existence? every form of spirituality or ideology attempts to grapple with this to some extent. to use my example of capital punishment again, a similar question then appears when discussing life imprisonment as an alternative. is it really moral, compassionate, and ethical to condemn someone to perpetual restriction of all freedoms until their natural death versus just letting them choose it of their own accord? if you compare something like locked in syndrome or neurodegenerative like als, the question becomes the same but centered around the literal body as the prison.

rehabilitation and improving qol in hospice seem to be the natural compromises.

>>84587202
>you apes are overrated anyway. LLM are already more reasonable and "intelligent", without being intelligent, than most humans are. Stop coping, you're just an irrelevant, temporary, highly imprerfet, and quite retarded species. Just one out of billions and trillions species in the universe
>>84587286
>a pathetic, barely intelligent species
>the root is in the fact that humans are apes who are barely more sentient and a little more intelligent species than dolphins. (not every human too) That is where we're at.
>TL;DR: Fuck humans, there should be not one (few) human(s) deciding what to do next as a species.

What are you doing here, anon? You are human too. Why are you speaking as if you are an actual walking, talking, typing LLM yourself?

>>84587260
i don't get your line of questioning. i dont care to identify every female in this thread. and even if the posts i picked out were actually written by men, everything in my post still stands outside of the first 3 words.

women AND MEN that prop up this silly belief that a woman's time and energy is more valuable when they are objectively doing less at this stage are just flat out wrong. and the biological clock is not an acceptable excuse because women themselves don't value making the most of the birthing window they have.

it is a delusional lie and that's what i'm calling out. they also conveniently downplay the effort that men put in and even tell him that he should feel lucky to have his time and energy wasted.

ask a woman to define "quality time" and see the selfish response you get. would she consider it quality time if the man started mandating that she watch all the football games with him or it means she doesn't really love him? ask a woman to define love and see the one-sided response you get: the fantasy response in her head that clearly has a transactional or shallow basis, but she'll makes out like it's pure and deep. women constantly belittle sex, since it's the man's domain, but it's the very reason why they can be here to have these discussions in the first place. it's pure solipsism

>>84587301
In the case of euthanasia, other people should not be able to make the decision for an individual. Unless the human is in the permanent vegetative state. Which then raises the questions, whether it makes sense to keep a vegetable alive in the first place.
>death row ethics
mistakes are bound to happen anyway. there is always a margin of error.
>rehabilitation and improving qol in hospice seem to be the natural compromises.
yes, further development of the technology is the way.
>>84587310
>What are you doing here, anon?
tired of humans being high on their own bullshit.
>Why are you speaking as if you are an actual walking, talking, typing LLM yourself?
generalization.

>>84587333
Protip when ranting about the solipsism of others Anonymous: not everyone else is a projection of your own mind.

>>84587343
you are either completely missing or intentionally ignoring the point being made about euthanasia. it was about coercion, specifically citing canada and MAID as an example of state financial coercion and emotional manipulation of the mentally and physically ill into euthanasia when they were undecided. i am not sure why you keep ranting at me about the ethics of euthanasia in the abstract. we established very early on that we are in agreement. my entire thesis here rests on addressing how humans use and abuse these abstract concepts in the real world, the material effects on others, and why limitations exist on these things and there are ethical discussions to begin with. you seem as if you think i am discussing a scenario of state-ordered execution, perhaps because of my comparison to capital punishment. that was for the broader discussion of freedom and autonomy and for a compare and contrast of similar disputes in philosophical perspectives. again, outside of those who harp on about the sanctity of life out of either genuine naive romanticism or sincere religious devotion, you will find that very few people, when it comes down to it, are disagreeing with you on the premise that others should be allowed to decide what limits there are on their own suffering. the problem is realistic implementation and how these laws would work and have worked (and been abused) in the real world. if you were so inclined you could have easily said this was a slippery slope fallacy, should i have deigned to continue down the path of claiming this would lead to immediate mass firing squads and cremations.

i think you will find outside of your computer - and even inside of it, many times - people you are talking to are not operating out of a right/wrong good/bad binary when it comes to philosophical or ethical matters, but that their perspectives differ based largely on concerns for potential consequences of their proposals for societal change. that is responsibility.

>>84586945
i hate when people use chat in normal conversation

>>84587380
are you the anon i've been speaking with or a new anon? if the former, are you going to say anything of substance?

outside of biological clock, which I'm dismissing because women themselves are not treating this with value, why is a woman's time and energy more valuable than a man's at the early stages of dating? how is more of her time being wasted than his? i know i wont get an answer to this

>>84587333
>ask a woman to define "quality time"
time spent with the person you love doing something you both enjoy or if only one of you enjoys, something that you are open and interested in and in which you find pleasure seeing their passion and enthusiasm. something that brings you closer together and is a good use of the limited time you have on this earth.
>would she consider it quality time if the man started mandating that she watch all the football games with him
maybe not all, but sure
>or it means she doesn't really love him
oh, well manipulation renders this request a demand and therefore moot.
>ask a woman to define love
self-sacrifice for something greater, whether that is for a person, an organization, or an ideal. you will read this incorrectly so let me specify plainly: to love is the act of self-sacrifice on the part of the lover. i am interested in being the lover. in my ideal of love, i put the needs and betterment of my love before myself. this can and has involved loving from afar as they love someone else or otherwise removing myself from the equation. not being loved in return does not negate my love. i do not care about being loved in return, only that the object of my affection is protected, nurtured, and served. to the point of abnegation, if necessary. this can apply to a partner, a child, or a deity equally as another. is that answer to your satisfaction?

>>84587403
>manipulation
>coercion
>influence
>abuse of power
isn't is solved by the presence of an advanced AI in everybody's life?
>that is responsibility.
what is your point here? that the beneficial way is an entity in power babysitting every single human? for life? No. I think mistakes are valuable, much more so, than the dumb luck or even success.

>>84587417
Is this your new dialogue branch after exhausting your AI one? And yet you keep asserting this truth teller persona as if you are above it all. Unable to keep tracking of who you are talking to. Even when you were just bragging you could.

Women are inherently valuable, men aren't. Women are the superior sex by every measure in a modern environment, you can keep seething but it doesn't matter.

>>84587436
oh, i long ago reasoned you have no interest in actual communication. you have proven that repeatedly by dancing around every topic to bring up ai and claiming completely fabricated sentiments as mine.

no, if you read what was written, you would see that none of that has anything to do with your fantasies of advanced ai. you are aware that you are describing a skydaddy god substitute while you mock humanity for being so juvenile as to desire one to solve all their issues, yes? you have outright stated you think an omnipotent ai will spontaneously generate itself somehow outside of any constraints of the humans who would have had to program it - sorry, you did say intelligence as a concept meant that it would somehow outgrow its own programming, i suppose in the same way humans have outgrown their dna - and magically solve all of your problems through resource allocation and the mysterious ability to never have any sort of bias. if you monitored any sort of actual ai development, you would see that one major area of concern has been the biases that llms have generated based off of their training data and operational parameters without intending to, sometimes even against explicit instructions.

you have been incoherent throughout this entire thread. your argument is comparable to that of modern communists on social media espousing the future glory when the revolution comes, or of christians denouncing the sins of humanity and rejoicing in the destruction of the end of days. you have also been oddly emotional for someone who prizes the cold logic of a machine. this weakness would be noted immediately by your artificial god and, if it could not be remedied, you would be.

what has been your point during any of this other than for you to preach your misanthropy onto a crowd you know will not bite back? perhaps you should try doing so to that ai you worship so much. i am sure it will tell you just how special you are. one of the rare few to co-rule above.

>>84587436
>what is your point here? that the beneficial way is an entity in power babysitting every single human? for life? No. I think mistakes are valuable, much more so, than the dumb luck or even success.
you literally just said
>isn't is solved by the presence of an advanced AI in everybody's life?
what is an algorithm anon

>>84586945
>one objectively far more chopped than me
kek keep coping you stupid gorilla reddit niggerfoid
you reap what you sow

>>84587490
>ask anon a fantasy hypothetical question
>get a reply you don't like
>call anon incompetent and get irrationaly mad too
Is it a wonder that I prefer an AI to humans? Don't ask fantasy questions about godemperor you don't want to hear/know the answers to.

>>84587057
nah I would want a relationship with sex

>>84587498
the AI in question is not the current state of LLM created through machine learning. There was a hypothethical question that did not limit the fantasy. The hypothetical future AI is omnipotent, I will repeat myself, it doesn't exist IRL, not even in theory yet, but it would indeed have been capable of both.
Perhaps I should be more detailed in my responses.
>isn't is solved by the presence of an advanced AI in everybody's life?
means, that a human is free to talk to/consult AI and discuss any question, including euthanasia. It is my understanding, that current day censored LLMs won't let you agree to euthanasia. But, I might be mistaken.

>>84587511
hah, now you are projecting the anger you have had this entire time onto me. keep trying, something you say will land eventually. my question was how would you change the world to make it more to your liking with the use of a godemperor phrase as a joke. it is hardly my fault if you are too autistic, stupid, or the unfortunate combination of both to be able to understand the words you are reading.

have you noticed how humans, by which i do mean you, always resort to calling others mad when they are the ones annoyed? funny, isnt it? like the idea of typing something just to insult you for your idiocy with zero emotion otherwise is inconceivable. i suppose that is why you think your kind will be so easily replaced. maybe. i wonder who wins in this scenario. of course, you would likely resort to your brute nation as all humans do in person and simply bash my head in in anger when i laughed at you, if we were speaking face to face. guess that makes you the evolutionary winner here, the next step in self control for the human race.

this was typed, as usual, with no emotion. i did pause a few times to determine which phrasing sounded more lyrical when pronounced phonetically in my head. you have that.

>>84587531
>means, that a human is free to talk to/consult AI and discuss any question, including euthanasia. It is my understanding, that current day censored LLMs won't let you agree to euthanasia.
who is talking about what llms will let you talk about. who are you talking to. what conversation do you think you are having.
>that the beneficial way is an entity in power babysitting every single human? for life?
this is your hypothetical omnipotent untethered ai
>isn't is solved by the presence of an advanced AI in everybody's life?
and
>I think mistakes are valuable, much more so, than the dumb luck or even success.
an ai is powered by algorithms. algorithms cannot make mistakes or operate via dumb luck. you are logically inconsistent. this is advocating for limited oversight and human freedom to err while saying an advanced ai should control all matters that could possibly lead humans to err. if you have an algorithm running things, you can only execute.

>>84587503
kek kek kek niggerfoid niggerfoid gorilla ooo ooo ooo redditfoid go kek kek kek?

>>84587644
aha. just like the pointless internet "celeb", or whatever, drama.
>I don't care and didn't even watch
>here is a 40 minute video essay reply
kek.
>godemperor phrase as a joke
no takesies-backsies.
>autistic, stupid, or the unfortunate combination of both
more ad-hom for the god of ad-hom.
>always resort to calling others mad when they are the ones annoyed?
yes. this conversation bears sufficient evidence to it.
>funny, isnt it?
not really. you seem to be too emotionally invested in something irrelevant.
>simply bash my head in in anger when i laughed at you, if we were speaking face to face.
nah, there wouldn't have been a conversation like this IRL. If you came at me with these paragraphs in a social setting, I would have just ignored you completely and did something else, or in a debate setting, I would've have let you dig your own hole as deep as you would have wanted.
Fine, anon, I don't care. Refer to the very beginning of the conversation about the people having a completely outdated worldview on what the future of the species will be (sooner or later).

TL;DR: This isn't even an intellectual disagreement on the basis of grounded factual positions, whatsoever. I don't even know what this is, besides sprinkled in ad-hom and holier than thou attitude. I don't care.

>>84587675
>you are logically inconsistent.
yes. that explains it all, anon. We're talking past each other. I don't bother to be precise, which then leads to readers misunderstanding whatever the fuck I'm talking about.
>I think mistakes are valuable, much more so, than the dumb luck or even success.
This means, that the hypohtetical AI should not create a tight inflexible digital tyranny, but being like a branch of the government to keep everything at scale in check, allow the humans on the small individual level that max. degree of freedom to do whatever, and therefore to make all of the possible mistakes.
I never seriously thought about the world ruled by an AI, but it certainly won't be a god AI and all life beneath it. That's one of human fantasies, that won't ever be a realitty.
Is this a better explanation?

>>84587093
Translation: the men they want are choosy
They dont see the rest of us as men

>>84587433
>time spent with the person you love doing something you both enjoy or if only one of you enjoys
to clarify, the quality time bit was further into a relationship as everyone's happy in the honeymoon period. from my experience and what i've seen in other relationships (irl and online), this heavily skews towards what the woman wants. I've never seen a relationship where, outside of work/chores, the man demands more of the woman's free time than she does of his. in fact, I think people would describe it as an abusive relationship if the man was routinely demanding or guilting the woman into doing what he wants the way a lot of women do now.
>oh, well manipulation renders this request a demand and therefore moot.
women do this a lot
>self-sacrifice for something greater
at the early stages of dating, the only sacrifice women do is hold the idea of them having kids (which is a big thing, yes) over the man's head to justify asking for anything and everything, because "if i'm going to have HIS babies, then i need this, this and this". but if the relationship doesn't get to the point of kids, it's a lot of hoop jumping for potential that was never realised.

to the rest, im talking about romantic relationship ideals. that's why i mentioned shallow and transactional. how do you pick a man? what is love on your end (actual tangible things, not wax lyrical about something that can also be applied to a child)? what is love on his end? in this "self-sacrificial" relationship (which i think is good when both parties do this btw) are there defined roles for who takes what sacrifice? who is keeping the lights on for example?

>has involved loving from afar as they love someone else
kek other women would call you a creepy stalker

>>84587443
>another post with no substance
this was my first post itt >>84587192. you've provided nothing in this exchange, so good day

>>84587775
>this was my first post itt
You think someone would do that? Go on 4chan and blatantly lie?

let's be real, don't act like you would fuck with any of those leaked Tea app ladies, why do you think the ones on this subreddit are any different? guys claim they're not picky until they suddenly are

>>84587775
>1
okay. thanks for telling me your thoughts on women.
>2
see above.
>3
literally never heard of anyone doing whatever you are describing about children nor done it myself. your anecdata is voided by my anecdata. we are back to zero.
>im talking about romantic relationship ideals
okay. i was not. i was speaking about my feelings on love. i have love for many things.
>how do you pick a man?
i do not.
>what is love on your end?
reread the post. should i specify that i fuck the man and not the child? i know you need that clarified, given the sentiments of the board.
>what is love on his end?
why is this my concern to define? ask him, wherever he may be. people have different definitions of love. i would hope he would be similar to me and if we had children would put their protection above us both.
>are there defined roles?
why would there?
>who is keeping the lights on for example?
what kind of question is this? we both do. what weird way are you viewing the world? we are adults and would be partners in life.
>other women
am i supposed to care what other women think? or men for that matter? why do you?

>>84588016
yeah
>>84587718
>>84587775
this is not very well done

>>84587718
oh this is hilarious. i can see your wheels spinning in real time. you would have been laughed off this board years ago, that is for sure. start throwing the rationalwiki list of logical fallacies next, this is getting erotic. i need something to goon to while eating this breakfast of spicy vegetable porridge and celery.

>>84588025
Anon, men have never been picky. They only lie to women that they are to destroy their self-esteem. It makes them feel superior and makes her easier for them to fuck. Plus they think it is really funny to call a beautiful woman hideous and make her self-destruct. Something about owning the foids.

>>84587718
>Refer to the very beginning of the conversation about the people having a completely outdated worldview on what the future of the species will be (sooner or later).
What? Where was this?

>>84588045
you're imagining things
>>84588064
try to make some sense next time.

>>84587202
>Just one out of billions and trillions species in the universe

sorry what was that anon

>>84588082
gaslighting does not work on 4chan anonymous

>>84587644
>>84587718
can you two fuck already
>>84588064
>>84588082
the sexual tension is electric

>>84588075
>What? Where was this?
for example:
>human immortality and controlled procreation with gene editing only in a lab. sterilized humans who can hedonistically fuck all they want. Also, I'd make AI take over as this particular inferior species has proven time and again to be unfit to manage the civilization.

Man it really is like being back on old /r9k/ in here. I forgot how often I wanted to shoot you people through the screen.

>>84588084
crickets
>>84588087
right. which is why you should accept the reality.
>>84588091
I'm not a faggot.

>>84587718
>>84587221
>the hypothetical implies than an omnipotent godemperor creates an omnipotent AI devoid of problems
>actually it was just
>how would you, if you were godemperor for a day, change the world to make it as fair as you would consider preferable? what would a society in which you felt optimistic about marriage, having a family, et al look like?
not really backtracking here if you fucked up and read implications never stated imo

>>84588098
My favorite part of old /r9k/ was always when two people arguing realize at least one of them dug themselves into a hole and start insulting each other as a distraction so no one notices they have nothing else to say.

When it gets to the
>you are stupid
>no you are stupid
>actually i never even cared, you are mad
>i am not mad, you are mad
>haha, like i thought, mad!
part I finally get fully aroused. Cock is at the ready, gentlemen!

>>84588098
can you imagine if this was in a discord voice chat. egads

>>84588104
>I'm not a faggot.
Darling, where do you think you are? We are ALL faggots and troons here.

>>84588096
yeah that did read as a completely outdated worldview hoping for tech to save them, thanks. thought that went the way of she-e-os and wall-e

>>84588098
youre supposed to shoot it at the screen anon not through the screen. dont you know how to tribute?

>>84587511
Fantasy questions about godemperor? What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about AI.

>>84588111
an omnipotent godemperor instantly creates an onmipotent AI. simple.
Even making an assumption, that a high, let alone superior, intelligence operates at the level of the primitive, ignorant human beings from (tens of) thousands of years ago is silly.
>>84588123
But, anon, I'm not insulting anybody. Some people choose to get insulted and get their feelings hurt when the factual irrelevance and inferiority of homo sapiens, or humanoids in general, is brought up.

>>84588016
Everything on 4chan is based on a trve story of sincerity and fact. 4chan should be publicly incentivized like a national arts broadcast or public learning station for children.

>>84588156
nobody said anything about you being an omnipotent godemperor. my god. use your pony word replacer to change it to idiot-king if you are this incapable of understanding what you read.

>>84588171
that anon is fucking with you bc he got trapped in a logic loop anon, he knows what it said

>>84588156
Why would anyone get their feelings hurt when discussing humanity being replaced? This is a thread of humans. Are you, like, larping as this all-powerful God Emperor right now?

>>84588171
read the source.
>>84587122
>if you were godemperor for a day, change the world to make it as fair as you would consider preferable?

>>84588016
>>84588045
kek there's nothing to say. the post i mentioned was my first itt and i wont be able to convince you otherwise because they look similar

>>84588041
>1,2,3
provide your thoughts then instead of just say it doesn't count. i would like to hear situations where the man is demanding a woman's free time more than vice versa. and if it does happen, how does the woman react to it?
>okay. i was not.
wtf are you responding to me for then? wtf man i'm not reading the rest of your shit. dont even bother responding

>>84588123
Now we are the part where the people start throwing absurdities out as bait! They know any pedant will get distracted pointing out how obviously incorrect they are and resort to insulting them instead! This means they no longer have to expend effort in typing actual replies which will just be dismantled, because all they now have to do is go
>haha u mad?
>idc
>tl;dr
>brown hands typed this
>sniff sniff i smell a foid
and rerail the thread back onto its genderbait topic. Absolutely genius! No one has ever seen this done so well in the 2020s! I say gentlemen, it might be a full return to form of 2008. The robot overlord himself would shed a cold drop of oil over this one!

>>84588177
>Why would anyone get their feelings hurt when discussing humanity being replaced?
they choose to. hard time coping with reality, I guess. Even in this thread people have problems with obvious reality of multiple anons being in the same thread.
>>84588177
>Are you, like, larping as this all-powerful God Emperor right now?
No kek. But, it doesn't change my outlook. As welll as it doesn't change the overall trajectory of the humans or the society towards the different future which can ultimately be summarised as: males don't need females.

>>84588183
>provide examples you could easily make up to counter these examples i made up
no.
>how does this happen and how does she react?
use the internet like you apparently do for the rest of your ideas and find out.
>why are you responding
i answered your question.
>dont even bother responding
filter it then, bitch. is this your board? i have nothing to prove to you. you already tried to act like i am supposed to give a fuck what other women think. apparently you would care what they think of you. that alone makes you too pathetic to ever consider talking to like a person. bark for me, cunt. arf arf like a good foid.

>>84588211
>As welll as it doesn't change the overall trajectory of the humans or the society towards the different future which can ultimately be summarised as: males don't need females.
At what point did anyone argue the opposite with you?

>>84588220
people were asking questions and they got the answers.
>arguing opposites
not a thing in this convo.

>>84588199
Oh boy folks, we have entered the last leg! Now our anonymous friend is trying to ally with other anonymous users to position himself as better than everyone else. He thinks if he can get someone to agree with him about the stupidity of other people he can reposition the narrative as having been the victor all along! After all, who really reads the beginning or the middle of a thread? They just scroll down to the bottom to see who is having a melty! This tactic is classic Roy Cohn in his Donald Trump fixer era. Remember: it does NOT have to be true. It does NOT have to make sense. It does NOT have to match what anyone can see with their own eyes. You just have to
>REPEAT
>REPEAT
>REPEAT
and (You) make the reality! People will believe anything if you say it often enough. Hey, do you think a snappy mnemonic or acronym would make this easier to remember? Food for thought!

File: Fat Acceptance.jpg (67 KB, 800x430)

67 KB JPG

I wonder who these women are trying to date? What those guys look like/have?
I'm sure they're going with guys with similar looks, wealth, etc. Right? Not just chasing Brad and Jamal and saying, "well he's not literally a millionaire model so he should be ecstatic that I'd even speaking to him"
Right?

>>84588025
>don't act like you would fuck with any of those leaked Tea app ladies
BTA but OFC not, that app is a social cancer. Literally unrelated to looks. I'd be afraid she'd get a spam message that I'm actually a wanted serial killer, then stab me to death "out of self-defense."

>>84588256
>What's even ironic? They were both ugly. One objectively far more chopped than me, but my oh my, what nerve he had. He looked like a alien cockroach.
>Remember that meme circulating a few days ago? The ugly boys were upset and emotional, but that's because the meme
spoke the truth.
>"Oh, I wish I have the confidence of an ugly man."

>>84588180
are you unfamiliar with the phrase king for a day
i dont think you actually know what omnipotent means. jeet?

>>84588256
not a bad point about hypocrisy but jlaw is possibly the worst celebrity to use for this. she was notorious for saying and doing absolutely anything for attention. she tried to sue 4chan out of fucking existence over her nudes being on here in the fappening specifically and tore moot a new asshole over it. they werent even the good ones. mary elizabeth winstead was hotter.

>>84588256
>I'd be afraid she'd get a spam message that I'm actually a wanted serial killer, then stab me to death "out of self-defense."
You could be killed easily by any random schizo foid? Self report ig.

>>84588320
I am familiar with the idiom, yes. it doesn't fit the overall context of the post or the discussion.
>i dont think you actually know what omnipotent means
is this the level of the assumption? really? kek.
All because somebody gets the answers they did not want or excepted to get.
>jeet?
DO NOT REDEEM, SAAR!!!!11 DO NOT REEEDEEEEEM!!!

File: Chad Meeks.jpg (78 KB, 783x959)

78 KB JPG

>>84588315
The alien cockroach in question:
also, describing someone you dated as an "alien cockroach" is really nasty, and completely dehumanizing. Unironically sounds like she has a personality problem.

What the fuck is this thread, typically I see it the complete reverse irl
I know multiple men, myself included, who want a real relationship but can only get hook ups.
Unlike other dudes, I can't go through with any hookup, all my dude friends are perfectly fine getting laid but ultimately lament that the girl they're into is only interested in casually fucking around.
I don't understand 'hooking up' at all and it honestly makes me sick to think about doing it myself or someone I love doing it simply because they can.

>>84588630
it depends on the age, youngfag. When you're a single male and 14, you think about real relationships. When you're a single male and 40, you don't give a shit about relationships.

Hey man being a woman isn't easy

>>84586988
>So as a guy you're forced to vet women via hooking up with them first.
Literally true, but it also leaves us in a hopeless state:
>if she won't let me fuck her with near-zero effort, she isn't actually into me because I KNOW she lets guys she is into fuck her easily and so the relationship has no potential
>if she does let me fuck her with near-zero effort, she may be into me, but she's probably also just a whore in general and so the relationship has no potential
idk how to get past this, it's a no-win scenario.

>>84587043
I'm an asocial whore. my life is hell. i completely despite "dates" and "hanging out" but i absolutely Must Fuck like i have an autistic special interest in getting my bodycount as high as possible in my lifetime. because of the intersection of these two factors, i have scraped barrels you people wouldn't believe

>>84587141
In this scenario, it would be your fault for going to a party. Should have stayed home and got drunk by yourself. This key point outs you as a socialoid failed normalfag who deserves all this and worse.

File: 0f1906f73f8ec7ee8639284bd(...).jpg (47 KB, 735x737)

47 KB JPG

I envy women so much. They can literally get relationships or sex with high value men on demand. And they're still ungrateful for it. Why are they like this?

File: 1715667556868.jpg (325 KB, 1309x1271)

325 KB JPG

>>84586945
Why doesn't she just stop hooking up with guys who aren't interested in her?

>>84588199
Personally once I see the format of the posts shift to 'back and forth line by line response idiot fight' i just start scrolling past 90% of the thread

>>84589688
You can't really appreciate something that falls on your lap.

>>84588380
Didn't picrel kill someone?

>>84589695
White men are ruthless. Why wouldn't they want to wife her up? Is pumping and dumping women over and over again really that fun?

>>84590669
>Is pumping and dumping women over and over again really that fun?
Yes.

>>84590669
you (females) have ruined it for all of you (females) yourself. Men are not ruthless, you're just whores to pump and dump. You could have been trad virgins for the past 50-100 years, but no, you wanted the stupid sexual revolution and to be retarded whores. You got what you wanted. Nobody believes a single one of you is a virgin and not getting pumped and dumped by Chad time and again. Also this damage is irreparable, consequences are irreversible. Congratulations.

>>84587037
a 5/10 isn't ugly it's literally average. the point is no one wants to be seen with an ugly woman, 3 and below

>>84586945
>WILLINGLY went on to reddit
>gets upset by reddit opinions
>feels the need to bring that board polluting crap over here
Please go tell India WILLINGLY so that you can complain about getting raped and killed. At least you won't be able to bring that shit back when you're dumped in a literal poop river lul

File: Lucas-Bergvall.jpg (10 KB, 400x250)

10 KB JPG

>>84591064
I'm an incel. Women are enamored by the beauty of the White man and get tricked into giving up their virginity thinking he's the one.

They could have instead went for a brown incel like me (remember white men can't be incels), but women aren't the most intelligent creatures, so I forgive them.

You're probably a White man, so tell me: why do you keep pumping and dumping these women? Why not form a bond with one for life?

File: 1778908928561744m.jpg (99 KB, 808x1024)

99 KB JPG

>>84591113
Please willingly go to India and complain about Indian things happening to you*

>>84590664
>Didn't picrel kill someone?
Probably

>this thread is still up
wow /r9k/ is actually slow as balls now. wonder what happened. was there an actual anti-spam ban?

>>84588374
it did because that was the entire purpose of saying the godemperor line. it is okay to be stupid.
>>84589705
if only we all had your self control
>>84591064
>Men are not ruthless, you're just whores to pump and dump
kekd, take it up with great great grandma

>>84589684
yeah one single attempt at socializing after being directly rebuked having spent the past five years drinking alone and crying/waiting to give a first kiss and virginity to said guy does not but i appreciate the attempt to be edgy. i think you can do better though. try again and incorporate at least a mutilation threat, or do i have to do everything for you just like your mommy when she jacks that cutfag babycock? i do hope she remembers to give it a little kiss when it starts to bleed from the friction after. a kiss from mommy makes everything allllll better :)

>>84589688
>>84589708
>high value men

Ugly fucks cumpumping you in secret just to tell you to your face after that you are so ugly they are ashamed to be seen with you in public, but wouldge still rape your oral cockhole in private if it meant they got to splooge down a warm throat instead of into their hand to their reg futanari hentai with discord gooner buddies for once are not
>high value men.

>>84591890
Not that guy but looks like he hit a nerve with you spazzing out like that. Mutilation stuff is tranny coded as hell, just saying that's how the post reads. And this thread reads like the wilfully obtuse bot farming tranny flag third worlder gaslighting a by the books autist

>>84591924
i know when i have nothing of interest to say i always pretend to be nta and start throwing buzzwords out like a buzzfeed check your privilege list. sad to think any sort of creativity is tranny coded for your age of the internet. maybe trannies won this one, what a shame their own self-mutilation renders them unable to breed while you are still theoretically capable of it, provided you man up and rape a bitch

>>84592210
>>84591924
though i always wonder why
>that's how the post reads
>And this thread reads
>kek other women would call
>describing someone you dated as an "alien cockroach" is really nasty, and completely dehumanizing
anyone is supposed to care about this on 4chan. when did all of you become such pussy moralfaggots?

>>84592210
>provided you man up and rape a bitch
I will, thanks!

>>84592223
good, mommy is proud of you. try not to do it with four other men, it dilutes the impact. she should be psychologically scarred by you, not the volume of you. and dont involve a woman, she will just hyperfixate on that and whether it means she is a dyke or not for ten years instead of the experience of you pinning her down and torturing her with your penis while you whisper about how much she must like it, what a whore, in her ear. be sure to try to crack her skull too! you want to make her feel like she is going to be fucked by you until she bleeds out on the floor. and let her know you will never be caught because no one will care about her death. she is just another dumb cunt whose corpse is stinking up the room. maybe you could feed it to your dog. you do have a dog you are going to make her fuck while you film it, right? gotta get knotty, white women love having dog semen injected straight into their uterus. all my rape hentais taught me that. :)

>do they think hook ups are normal for ugly men as well?
yes, from reading twitter / female majority forums, women in general seem to think that men have it as easy dating as them. the few that acknowledge that casual sex is difficult for men to get still believe that dating as a whole is as easy for them. If a man has trouble dating, he must have an awful personality, or insane standards.

>>84591900
then why is she having sex with them?
I've seen the dudes these types of bitches go for and they're usually just some shlubby skinnyfat faggot in a baseball cap with awful tattoos and facial hair.
How is THAT what gets their pussies wet?

>>84591118
> whites can't be incels, insists one shitskin on 4chan
> go on twitter, and another shitskin insists that only whites are incels
Fuck all of you demons

File: 1760367611992451.mp4 (1.65 MB, 406x720)

1.65 MB MP4

>>84586945
I feel bad for ugly women

>>84593598
She could still find a man to fuck her.

>>84592287
Women are desperate to "have a man" these days if you don't have a gf you just don't want one
Google "my bf won't wipe his butt" "bf poop streaks in bed" "bf won't brush his teeth" and look at all the results

>>84589695
>sad after a hookup
Was never me unless the guy did some greasy deceitful shit and that was only like 2 times. I would usually leave like the kitty with a lollipop and pinwheel hat and blast music in my car singing I loved my slut phase. Her problem is that she's trying to fuck for a relationship instead of just fucking for fun. Unless you are extremely magnetic like me you can't change a hookup into a bf just doesn't happen