Can this be refuted without committing any fallacies from the sticky?
Ive never seen anyone do it.
What a kike
People prefer different things. In this case Mr Tumblr likes to be cucked.
>>70438051
It's a very subjective thing, you can't make a complete counter-argument because it differs from person to person.
I don't think I would care as long at it's under ~30. Kinda gross to think about someone else fucking your gf but there's not really anything you can do.
John Green seems like a bit of a cuck if he genuinely doesn't care at all.
>>70438051
If he can use a dishonest analogy why can't I use a fallacy?
this guy is a literal pedophile
>>70438051
It has been scientifically refuted. The more sexual partners you had the less likely you are to be able to commit to a new relationship.
And he is just making a ridiculous analogy, so before someone can refute his point he needs to have one.
OK I've had enough. Where can I get a 4chan filter so I can block posts like this? This picture gets posted here every single day.
>>70438051
Why is he comparing a woman's ability to pair-bond with eating cheerios?
>>70438051
It's a faulty analogy. You can't logically argue against something that is already faulty in the sense that you must retain the premises that are stated in the opponents argument.
Essentially, Greens argument has never been demonstrated reasonable.
Burden of proof is on Green as he has yet to explain why it is the way he says it is.
He merely makes the comparison, he gives no explanation and just expects others to make the fallacious jump of "that makes sense" when in reality it doesn't because it has no explanation and all arguments in affirmation are just falling in line with opinionated premises.
>>70438541
same can someone suggest one? I want to block the native american immigration one too
>>70438541
relax man
>>70438392
>under 30
>>70438529
proof
He likes his cereal after other men have dipped their penises in it.
>>70438051
Done.
>>70438051
>look mom I posted it again
>>70438051
>sex has as much of an emotional impact as eating cereals
If you are a sociopath, you shouldn't assume that everyone else is.
>>70438392
This.
Not worth thinking about, so don't. Simple.
>>70438051
>can this false-equivalency-logical-fallacy be refuted without committing any logical fallacies?
This is platinum b8, and you losers are falling for it
>>70438596
/thread
>>70438051
>consuming cereal that has been eaten and shat out 48 times
no
>>70438596
Underrated post.
>>70438051
>disprove this fallacious argument without committing any fallacies
>>70438051
>it's a John Green thread.
Don't forget to sage
>Women dont process casual sex like men do mentally
>Women getting infected with a reoccurring STD/STIs is a bigger threat since it could also affect/infect a child during birth and cause longterm damage to the kid
>>70438051
Why would i want to eat cheerios that are 35yrs old and have had a parade of cocks jammed into it?
>STDs and a lack of loyalty are the same as carbohydrates in a bowl
>>70438051
>My personal preference not to be with someone I find disgusting is a fallacy.
>>70438051
It depends on your priorities.
If you think the purpose of relationships is hedonistic pleasure and that marriage is merely Dating+, then sure, nothing wrong with marrying a slut.
If you think the purpose of marriage is nurturing a happy and wholesome family and therefore see divorce as a failure, the opposite conclusion is inescapable. Just take a look at pic related.
Women sleeping with a lot of bad people is bad because it shows you have bad values. It shows you over-indulge. Like if you had an entire pizza pie for every meal. Could you afford it? Maybe. But is it good? No, and people will look at you negatively if you eat like that. It's gluttony.
When a man is a whore, that means he's attractive, he's smooth, and he knows how to work women. It's an accomplishment. Not every guy can do that. Women can get sex literally any time they want. Any woman can be a whore just be existing. Men have to fight for it. That's why they're congratulated for it and women aren't.
How many fat ugly guys do you see fucking a bunch of women? Not many, if any. Now how many fat disgusting female sluts do you see? I know i see a lot.
That's why the situations are different.
Eating multiple bowls of cereal doesn't impair your ability to eat more bowls of cereal.
Having sex with multiple people does impair your ability to commit. It also carries a far higher chance of catching an STD. It also shows that you may act purely on impulse (You want sex therefore you sleep with the first available person).
>>70438051
Ok I am bisexual. Yes yes kill youself faggot etc
It's relevant for this discussion though.
I wouldn't wanna fuck a man with alot of sexual partners beacuse that displays a level of immaturaty and degenarate behaviour. I wouldn't wanna fuck someone who is not gonna be loyal to me and who is probably gonna give me aids
It would be a destructive relationship.
Number of sexual partners is relevant to that to give me an indication of what type of person i am dealing with. If they need to be validated by sex then i am not interested.
This applies to men and women.
Women just choose to not make it an issue how many chicks a guy has slept with. Why? I dunno.
Women are shit at picking mates i guess.
>>70438541
It's built in dummy.
>>70438051
I don't want used goods in a woman.
Is that sufficient? Why do you believe that I somehow need to conform personal preference. Women are perfectly free to think less of men with many sexual partners, so are men.
>>70438051
>can this be refuted without commuting any fallacies from the sticky?
no, because the original argument is ITSELF a fallacy from the sticky- strawman or faulty analogy as others have pointed out
that's a pretty flimsy analogy, I'll respond with one of my own.
Yeah, you are not supposed to be another Cheerios to the person you are supposed to marry. You are not supposed to be just an object for immediate satisfaction.
A long term relationship is supposed to be much more than you giving instant satisfaction to a whore that has fucked 47 guys.
>>70441481
I know this is a b8 thread by the cucked nu-male whiteknight op posted, but I'll post some more shit
Where is that pic explaining Women have to be selective because pregnancy takes too long and they should choose the best available mate to have the best possible offspring while men should try and spread their seed the most they can to ensure their genes pass on.
If that faggot wants to go on gay analogies, one can just bring up the key/lock analogy.
>>70441600
and another
>>70438051
Women who are promiscuous will often get imoregnated by another man and have her partner spend his life investing in another's offspring. It is basic common sense (and evolutionary instinct) to avoid such women for long term relationships. Other women want to avoid consorting with such women to maintain their status and will also reveal this behavior of rivals to have more access to quality men for long term relationships.
>>70438051
>A key that can open a thousand locks is a master key
>a lock that can be opened by thousand keys is a shitty lock
See this whole article:
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>>70441781
one moar
>>70438051
Even though I am a successful author, I have trouble handling a woman in such a way that she stays faithful to me. So I am totally cool with her taking miles of dick in any hole she pleases, I will not lay any guilt on her for that.
Not a cuck, though.
>>70438051
Something, something, 40 dicks in your cereal? something
>>70438541
gotcha senpai
reddit.com/r/autism
>>70438051
>go to footy match at Suncorp
>go to bathroom
>take a leak
>wash hands
>walk out
>bump into woman
>turn around and say "sorry"
>she's kinda looking at me
>keep going
>5 minutes later about 10 cops are grabbing me and hauling me out
>the rape accusations fly until the exact moment that video footage from outside the bathroom is shown
>cops drop it
>stare at this woman
>"Get the fuck out or we'll charge you."
>leave
Call bullshit all you want, but it happened.
>>70442046
Came here to post this. As an analogy it cannot be beaten.
>>70438051
>refute X
How about you prove X first instead of asking people to refute it.
>>70438051
this is one of the easiest arguments to refute. the best part is that you're using irrefutable scientific research, which enrages feminists all the more
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2ohmw9/pubmed_women_carry_dna_of_casual_sex_partners_for/
>>70438051
Because men have to work to get laid. That's the truth. Men and women aren't equal.
Men have to put on a show and dance, and be a smooth talker and compete with other men to get pussy. So when they get it, it's an achievement. That's why a man who sleeps with a lot of women is a player.
Woman have to do fuck all to get laid except stand there and look pretty. So when they fuck a lot of guys, it's not a challenge, it's not something they worked for. It's easy. Easy women are unattractive because there's nothing special about fucking them. They're cum dumpsters.
Also if a girl has fucked 40 guys before me, I'm going to assume that a) she has an std b) she's going to cheat on me.
>>70438051
It implies that human relationships and the enjoyment of a cereal are somehow comparable.
They are not in the slightest. First of all eating cereal has a one-sided emotional investment. The cereal literally has no opinion of you or your preference for it. The cereal has no opinion of being eaten, has no knowledge of other cereals you've eaten before, it literally feels nothing.
Humans however are a little bit different. I don't think it's particularly out there to say that the first serious relationship a human has with another will always feel the best. Because everything is new. Their personality is new, the way it melds with your own is new. All the physcal things you do together are new, and your entire experience of these things is linked to this one person. Even if you are not a very good match, due to the pure fact that you are experiencing a relationship with them for your first time you value it greatly.
Now that's not to say this first relationship will be your best. You will move on and probably have even better ones. You'll be with people who are completely different to the first person, who meld with you in a way the previous ones didn't. They will all feel different and they will all feel good.
But how long do you think it takes until you start to double up? Human beings are not all special snowflakes like we might like to think. If you're a serious slut and date dozens upon dozens of people you're eventually going to find people who were similar to your 3rd partner or you 12th, and they won't seem as special. All the things they say and do aren't interesting or exciting becausae you've experienced them all before.
Oh you like X movie or you like going to art museums? Yes my 23rd partner Chase was like that.
Through no fault of your own you've become boring. You're dating a person with a laundry list of partners and when stacked up next to them you have nothing unique or exciting to offer that she hasn't experienced before.
No man wants to marry a roastie who spent years as the town bicycle.
Smelly dumb roastie scum.
>>70443177
tl.dr
he's a cuck
This guy's face inspires a visceral and uncompromising hatred in me. Why are lefty bwois always such meek looking push-over faggots?
>>70443318
having high testosterone or lifting weights makes you more conservative
ask /fit/, it's weird. has something to do with realizing you made yourself into something better
>>70443318
low test
>>70439516
Why do young liberals circle jerk about science and then abandon reason and the scientific method when data runs counter to their narrative?
>>70438051
not an argument
>>70438051
These people can only ever focus on themselves and deflecting criticism from themselves.
> They never see it as providing values for future generations or how these things influence other aspects of life.
Truly they are hedonistic degenerates.
>>70438580
Good post. I mean it.
>>70438051
Cheerios is going to be the last cereal you try?
>applying logic to sexual preference
is he retarded?
>>70438392
>under 30
Confirmed cuck
>>70443494
Why do young conservatives circle jerk about science and then abandon reason and the scientific method when data runs counter to their narrative?
Why do young anarcho-capitalists circle jerk about science and then abandon reason and the scientific method when data runs counter to their narrative?
Why do young progressives circle jerk about science and then abandon reason and the scientific method when data runs counter to their narrative?
It's an extreme ideology thing, you will hungrily grab on to anything that will help you, but if you suddenly don't like what it concludes, you accuse it of being jewish tricks or perpetuating white supremacy or muh patriarchy.
I was going to include communists in here but they are legitimately anti-science. Ancaps are technically because of praxeology but in practice they appeal to science and reason all the time.
>>70443177
This is why I think we need to bring back some form of arranged marriage, in addition to shaming promiscuous women again. In decades gone by women simply wouldn't have been allowed to act in this way.
Monogamy and marriage regulated female behaviour, ensuring all men got loyal wives, as they were dependent on them and couldn't get out of the marriage contract, since no fault divorce didn't exist. When you let women run riot, they flock to the top 20% of men, leaving the rest dejected, with no incentive to work hard. Patriarchy is very real, and it's a good thing.
Ban abortion, scrap no fault divorce and welfare for single mothers.
>>70438051
It's refuted by anthropology
>>70438715
This / a woman having 30 former partners makes one think that she can't engage sentimentally with a man. One realizes that statistically, trying to bond with a slut with the intention of forming a family is statistically improbable. Even if she, despite her nature manages to settle down, the man with whom she has a family can't help but wonder if he is raising his own kids. That is a strategic reason, then there is the fact that any m an feels the need to own his woman. Also looking at the bigger picture a woman who does not engage in reproduction early on is detrimental for the society when she shares the males'resources. Those resources could be used to raise children.
>>70445439
Also do not try to understand what this man says, he is an idiot and a mediocre author at best when it comes to writing and when it comes to the substance of the book his work is a cliche mess
