I'm 30 years old and a virgin.

I was venting to my parents about how hard it is to find a girlfriend and they arranged for me to go on a date with one of their friends 33 year old daughter. I saw pics of her and she saw pics of me and we were both interested in meeting eachother.

She also has never been on a date before and our parents decided that we should go out.

Anyways about an hour before I was supposed to go I got very nervous and didn't end up going.

Now I am pretty sure she isn't going to give me another chance because she probably thinks that I didn't like her pics but I did actually find her cute. Like she looked nice like she didn't have a bitchy looking face so I would've felt comfortable around her for sure and she probably wouldn't be too judgemental hopefully

It's not even entirely my fault that I got nervous either my parents gave me a bottle of wine to bring to her house and it made me feel pressured like I was just going there to have sex or something and I literally have no idea how to have sex and I would be terrible at it probably and then she would tell all of her friends about how bad I was and my penis size and stuff

I asked for my dad to set up another date and he told me that I embarrassed him and he called me a "fucking faggot". I talked to him again today about it and he started screaming and said that he had 3 kids when he was my age and that he has a faggot for a son.

I don't know what to do anymore

>>936621725 (OP)
Recruit, no one cares if you are a virgin when you are 70.
Even fewer people care on 4chan.

How is it your job to overpopulated the fucking planet just because your dad cannot accept shit?

Forget it, sex is dull and only good when you love someone the first time.

I have slept with quite a few women, and I have not wanted to do it twice with any of them.

The best thing you can do is focus on making a life in other ways, like career or study, then let anything develop naturally.

Trust me, only jockstrap wearing nerd haters think sex is everything, and only silly fuckers who do not understand that the population needs to slow down not speed up want everyone to have a family.

Just let it slide off your back like water.

As Bruce Lee said, be like water, my friend.

>>936622045
I always see people say "just don't worry about it" when I post online about my situation but then when I ask when they lost their virginity it's usually at a normal age. Like oh yeah don't worry about being a virgin at 30 dude I lost mine when I was 16 and it wasn't a big deal!

I'm 30. I've gone through high school, college and work and never had anyone want to go out with me. The few women I have hit on have all rejected me. The more time goes on the worse my anxiety gets.

>>936622045
So u/Joseph8104 was ur date ur sister?


Or just like a sister?

I thought this board was for 18+

>>936622240
I have only ever had one girlfriend, my first love, and I had to pursue her for months.

I lost my virginity to her when I was 18 and made a pisspoor attempt at sex, I had never even watched a porno that I could remember well enough to know even how to fucking do it right.

I have slept with a few women, yeah, but none of them meant anything except passing a couple of hours.

You are missing the point; it is not about when you do it, it is about doing it with the right one and doing it when you are sure you are good enough at it to do it right.

Nothing will make you see what I am trying to say, unless you acknowledge that experience means something, and see that I am not trying to be an asshole or have an agenda beyond your own well being.

If it bothers you that much then get an escort and practice, if you do not really want a relationship and it is about losing your virginity, you are like a schoolkids with hormones in the air and you need a reality check, it should be about finding a partner and then about maybe having one kid after a long time.

Look at my pic and tell me if I should have major issues getting a girlfriend? I always have been without one, for 46 of my 48 years.

>>936622300
I can barely compute what you are trying to convey.
I am 48.

I have never dated anyone who even reminds me of my sister.

I am not a fucker, you probably are which is why it confuses you. This guy is not a fucker, he does not need advice from a fucker.

>>936622427
I get it that it is about doing it with the right one, but it's been like 17 years since I have hit puberty and I haven't found the right one. Everyone I went to school with now has families and shit and I'm still stuck on square 1.

>>936622240
This is, ironically, both the best and worst mindset you could have about your situation. It's the "best" because historically like only 40% of dudes passed on their genes so you are very right to be worried because it is very fucking easy to be a guy and to slip through the cracks. No doubt about that and anyone who says differently is fucking gaslighting you, dude.

It's the worst mind set because it's causing your anxiety to fly through the roof and as much of a jagoff as >>936622045 is with his anti-natalism... sadly... most guys get their girls by focusing on other things and letting shit develop naturally with a girl.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing, mostly a bad thing. The silver lining good thing about it is that the predominate majority of women find the predominate majority of men to be butt fucking ugly, but if you're a chill dude and she gets to know you then you can be "ugly hot." That's how your average dude gets their girls. The girl got to know them, they liked them enough, and they picked him as their "ugly hot" boyfriend.

Ultimately if you don't learn how women work then you can't get girls consistently, and if you can't get girls consistently you can't get the experience you need to be that guy in his 40s telling people like you in their 30s that it's just not that big of a deal because it isn't, but getting that first 1 is a huge deal.

Btw, >>936621725 (OP), that's a really bitch thing you did. Your dad really pulled some strings for you and you really let him down and you let the girl down. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself or making excuses for yourself, get fucking pissed off at yourself, get fucking fed up with yourself, and then resolve yourself to never let yourself bitch out again.

>>936622683
Like i said, women are very basic, but the basic structure of what they want is not easily deducible. if you cannot be that thing they want immediately, it will possibly take multiple rejections by the same woman before you get a shot with her. I had to befreind her brother so I could go on bike rides and shit with them. I did not do that on purpose, I kinda fell into friendship with him. So my whole losing my virginity at 18 rests on a twist of fate. It would have been much later because my first relationship gave me the confidence to make the first moves.

>>936622724
I am not anti natalist you silly prick, I am anti every asshole deserves 3 kids. We cannot house the people we already have.

Hey guess what dumbass, the bottle of wine didn't mean anything and even if it did you didn't it have to take it with you.
You are an autistic retard and don't deserve to reproduce so unless you get a lobotomy and change your entire personality and stop being so pathetic, forget about ever having sex.

>>936622827
>We cannot house the people we already have
you are very misinformed sir. We3 very much can, and feed them all too. However, the issue lays in where those resources are geographically compared to the population. Take housing, China has overbuilt housing in their country to the point that they could house, depending on whose estimates you use, 500 million to 3 billion more people than they have. An d for food, the US alone throws out enough food to feed who knows how many tens of millions each year, and that's not counting how much farm land goes to growing shit for dumbass reason like corn for ethanol. With modern farming tech, the carrying capacity for Earth is at least 10 billion.

>>936622827
>I am not anti natalist you silly prick
Yes you are, you silly goose. Why even express your evil opinion if you're not going to own it and be proud of it?

>I am anti every asshole deserves 3 kids.
Bullshit, I don't accept your backpeddle. You said:
>How is it your job to overpopulated the fucking planet just because your dad cannot accept shit?
>Trust me, only jockstrap wearing nerd haters think sex is everything, and only silly fuckers who do not understand that the population needs to slow down not speed up want everyone to have a family.
That is TEXTBOOK anti-natalism.

>We cannot house the people we already have.
We could. Plenty of homes and apartments are sitting vacant. There's plenty of space to build. Even then, we can always build upward.

It's not that housing people isn't something we couldn't do, it's that the people with their hands on the levels of power say that we need to reduce carbon emissions, as in their anti-natalist asses are saying WE are the carbon they want reduced.

>>936621725 (OP)
easy, stop being a fucking Faggot, you fucking Faggot.

>>936622827
>I am not anti natalist you silly prick, I am anti every asshole deserves 3 kids. We cannot house the people we already have.
>>936622959


America has been around a couple of hundred years and hit 335 million people, if all the resources were not going on building new houses, and instead people saw sense that if the world can hold 10 billion people we should stop at 8 to make resources more available and longer lasting... Then the world would start to reach utopia much sonner than it ever would if it ever would at all if every generation keeps spewing out 5 kid families. People cannot stop, they are too ignorant.

If you do not start telling people the earth is overpopulated they will never fucking stop, and people are going to have to hamstriged by forward planning governments with forced contraception and fewer incentives to have a happy life because a happy life makes for lack of concern.

>>936623005
BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE HAVE FIVE OR 6 KIDS SOME PEOPLE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE, Because no-one wants to be that one, it requires some of us to not have kids at all. I have chosen to not have kids because I can see where my lineage would be heading. It takes knowledge and a decent IQ to reach that conclusion. In just 20 generations the planet can be fucked and countries will start deploying mass causality mechanisms to stem the idiocy.

>>936621725 (OP)
Dude for real, go see a shrink.

You had a date and you didn't go because of stress: it's not ridiculous or absurd, it's a mental health issue. You're afraid, you have anxieties, they're obviously linked to something in you, your past, the way you built yourself. The first thing to understand is why you were so afraid to go.
Were you afraid of screwing up the date? But in that case, it wouldn't have changed anything, you would still be a virgin but nothing less.
Do you have anxiety about women in general? In that case, there's no point in trying to force yourself. It's like forcing a water-phobic to jump into a pool: it doesn't solve anything and even makes the problem worse.

So don't force yourself to try to see women (but don't stop yourself either if the situation arises naturally), but try to understand, with a mental health professional, where your problem comes from and how to solve it.

>>936623005
>Yes you are, you silly goose. Why even express your evil opinion if you're not going to own it and be proud of it?

I am not anti births, I am anti birth rate idiocy.

I have not studied the definition of the word because I have never come across it, but it seems to be anti-birth in structure, not anti high birth rate.

>>936623099
>America has been around a couple of hundred years and hit 335 million people, if all the resources were not going on building new houses, and instead people saw sense that if the world can hold 10 billion people we should stop at 8 to make resources more available and longer lasting... Then the world would start to reach utopia much sonner than it ever would if it ever would at all if every generation keeps spewing out 5 kid families. People cannot stop, they are too ignorant.
Holy anti-natalism, Batman! The mask slips completely off.

>If you do not start telling people the earth is overpopulated they will never fucking stop, and people are going to have to hamstriged by forward planning governments with forced contraception and fewer incentives to have a happy life because a happy life makes for lack of concern.
And why not bring some eugenics into the mix too since you're going in the parking lot of it with your disgusting anti-natalism? Perhaps you could breed a race of people that need less food or shoot less sperm? I mean the possibilities are endless once you've firmly crossed the threshold of pure unadulterated evil anti-natalism.

I mean, shit dude, you think the population is so burdensome, you could always take a long walk off a short cliff? Make your own contribution?

1/2

>>936623005
>That is TEXTBOOK anti-natalism.
Maybe i do not understand it, but it seems highly convenient that everyone driving towards a planetary criticality has something 'evil' to call those with foresight.

If africans were governed and managed by me there would only be cities and proper contraception would be mandatory, ergo less deaths, less struggling and less hatred by the rest of the world.

If China hadn't seen what I am talking about a long time ago it would not be leaving ghost cities empty. HIgh IQ thought, not evil. They beat people in the street for having too many kids you know. That is the way forward, I am offering you a chance to see before that comes about.

>>936623099
>BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE HAVE FIVE OR 6 KIDS SOME PEOPLE CAN ONLY HAVE ONE
Funny how we went from "I'm not an anti-natalist" to "BRO LEMME TELL YOU 'BOUT MY ANTI-NATALISM!"

>Because no-one wants to be that one, it requires some of us to not have kids at all.
Even if we accepted this pants-on-head retarded proposition seriously, you mean to tell me only death by natural causes takes human beings else they're functionally immortal? Christ-on-a-cracker! Your evil anti-natalism suddenly makes sense once we ignore both statistics and objective reality!

>I have chosen to not have kids because I can see where my lineage would be heading.
And that wasn't enough for you, so you decided to preach anti-natalism on top. Goodie goodie.

>It takes knowledge and a decent IQ to reach that conclusion.
And yet you've managed it with the double-digit IQ. Astounding.

>In just 20 generations the planet can be fucked and countries will start deploying mass causality mechanisms to stem the idiocy.
Yeah sure, in your wildest wet dream. Or how about instead we rise up and mass casualty the anti-natalists?

2/2

>>936621725 (OP)
lmao, nice post.
I'd hate to be your father, but its his fault.
And ye, you kinda won the lottery but spagettied out when you had to claim the prize.

Now to the acctual advice. You are lacking social skills, because we live in an antisocial dystopia. You arent alone with this.
1st step is getting into some clubs that you are intrested in, sports, shooting etc. (NOT SOME FAGGOT GAMES).
You parrents should have set you up with this when you have been 6-10 years of age. But as allways random strangers on the web will need to take the father role for your dad.

Also delete the porn and soft porn from your drive.

>>936622427
this shit is retarded
>le right one
there is no right one. not everyone can make nice with humans. also i am so tired if this sex puritanism on this site. i have fucked several women and many times it was enjoyable. i had a gf for two years who was no beauty queen, the sex was fantastic though. ive never loved any of them. i barely liked my gf, she was a nervous wreck and a shit cook and i treated her badly. still great sex even after we broke up until she found some landscaper dude and ghosted me.
just fuck girls and stop being so precious about it. women are just humans and they also want to fuck.

>>936623325
You are a major cretin, I have already said I have never come across anti natalism before as a word.

I have a 147 IQ and that doesn't mean I am right, but it means I have some foundation for being considered.

You just cannot separate evil form logic, like every other low IQ muppet. You crusaded the witches, now you want to crusade the people saying, whoa, slow down people, we do not need 12 billion people just to survive.

What is evil about me, explain it without using the anti natalist label, explain it so that someone who has never heard that can see.

There are labs building viruses that can kill populations without killing others right now, they are doing it under the guise of research.

If you listen and slow the fuck down you will not have your decendents die silly deaths, but you find all this impossible so keep sucking the angry father teat and hating on those who seem to be evil, just like all your ancestors did.

I do not leave any kids for your shitstorm, only you do, so I am outy.

>>936621725 (OP)
your father is right to be pissed lol you asked him to set you up then bailed. honestly pathetic.

>>936623355
I do not want to fuck anyone, period.
There was a right one, I just had no frame of reference, so I blew it. I wasn't old enough and thought I had other options.

I spent years in misery kicking myself for that fuckup.

I do not think holes are precious or something, you seem to assume I am saying everyone will find the right one, I am not but if everyone tired instead of fucking every bird they can, there would not be single mums with 6 kids just sucking government teat.

sorry guys the schizo posting kind of ruined my thread and I feel overwhelmed and can't reply to every one

And to that stupid anon:

Antinatalism is the philosophical position that argues against procreation, holding that bringing new life into existence is morally wrong or unjustifiable.

That is not what I am saying at all, I am saying bringing too many into the world is unethical and dangerous.

So take your 'evildoer' hat off and go sit quietly in the fucking corner.

>>936623578
OK I will shut up now, let the other guy just have his dig and we will call it a day.

>>936623578
I just hope you'll seek professional help, dude.

>>936621725 (OP)
Bro you're being a retard. Beinging a bottle of wine is a common polite gesture when you are going to somebody's place for the first time. It's not an implication of anything weird.

Also sex is not hard. Just concentrate on pleasing your partner and you will be better than like 90% of guys. If you aren't sure how to finger a girl, play with a clit, or eat a girl out, just look them up. There's lots of info online. But it's really not very complicated.

BTW your dad is based lol

Screw it, threads a dog, OP is a whiny bitch because he has never had pussy and all the other shit might aswell be ignored because no amount of screaming into the night can negate the fact that common knowledge and IQ levels of coming generations, coupled with failure to control emotions WILL result in world overpopulation unless some drastic measures are taken by governments.

1. Beat people in the street when they break 2 child policy (like china)
2. Mandatory chip-based contraceptive slow-release system population uptake, to be rescinded when adequate planning to have a family has been shown by individuals.
3. In the event of failure of these methods, release of viral prototypes that thin out the population, like COVID, but more virulent.

This is the future because you fucks think evil tells you you are going to die by your own actions if you do not listen.

WITCHHUNTING FUCKS, DYING OFF LIKE USUAL.

So OP, have you learned anything, or is getting a hooker to stop you whining about being old and a virgin just too much to take?

>>936623470
>You are a major cretin, I have already said I have never come across anti natalism before as a word.
Oh well let me help you understand:
Anti-natalists deserve the woodchipper. Depending on who you talk to they either deserve the woodchipper more than pedos or slightly less than pedos.

Personally? I don't care so long as you go in feet first. You're not enlightened. You're meat.

>I have a 147 IQ and that doesn't mean I am right, but it means I have some foundation for being considered.
It was a turn of phrase. Ultimately a test score doesn't matter. What matters is your black heart and your desperate need of being placed in a woodchipper.

>You just cannot separate evil form logic, like every other low IQ muppet.
Just because you employ LOLgic and call it "logic" doesn't mean I have a low IQ.

>You crusaded the witches, now you want to crusade the people saying, whoa, slow down people, we do not need 12 billion people just to survive.
You're the one who prognosticated the notion that the anti-natalist elites in control of the countries would start "deploying mass causality mechanisms" and I flipped it back on you and yours. It's not my fault you're more deserving.

Anyone who makes the case there needs to be less people volunteers themselves to go first. Period.

>What is evil about me, explain it without using the anti natalist label, explain it so that someone who has never heard that can see.
Well to start, you're alive to even debate the topic. If the world is too burdened, GET THE FUCK OFF THE PLANET THEN. NOW.

Secondly it is entirely antithetical to freedom, to our ability to pursue happiness, and it threatens the very foundation of our society. The main reason we participate in making a society THRIVE is through legacy, leaving a legacy for our kids. Society necessarily gets worse if there is no legacy. Crumbles, even.

1/3

>>936623470


Thirdly, all the logic anti-natalists employ is specious at best. Outright propaganda at worst. Especially when it comes from the top down. Seems like it's just evil argumentation not from a genuine place of worry of resources running out and actually a concern that there's an awful lot of people and not nearly enough drones to repel a revolt.

Fourthly, I've personally seen an anti-natalist scowl at a kid and what "it represents." Just the evil is palpable. It radiates off of them.

I probably could dredge up some more but it's late and this is going to be my last reply.

>There are labs building viruses that can kill populations without killing others right now, they are doing it under the guise of research.
Great, so we started with your ignorance on housing and now we're finishing with your ignorance on virology. Yeah, sure, we can gain-of-function some terrifying shit but viruses are still subject to evolution and selection pressure and mad scientists still want the germ to spread without having to jab each individual person with the virus personally to maintain plausible deniability. This means the selective pressure is going to err on the side of transmission and not lethality because if someone dies then they cease to be a vector while someone who survives because the strain of virus is milder gets more spread.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU SHOULD SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH ABOUT HOW YOU KNOW NEXT TO GOD DAMNED NOTHING ABOUT THE TOPICS YOU'RE BRINGING UP.

There is never going to be a virus that wipes out humanity or even most of humanity just by the way transmission and lethality interplay. If it were in the nature of viruses to do such a thing, then why is there still even life on this planet anyway? Mother nature has trillions of gain-of-function "labs" scattered all over the fucking globe, in essence. Ever think of that, Einstein, when you're not stroking yourself to the thought of bloodlines ending?

2/3

>>936623470

>If you listen and slow the fuck down you will not have your decendents die silly deaths, but you find all this impossible so keep sucking the angry father teat and hating on those who seem to be evil, just like all your ancestors did.
>I do not leave any kids for your shitstorm, only you do, so I am outy.
Oh I've listened to more than my fair share of anti-natalists. The listening phase is over.

It's real simple: You listen, or jump in the woodchipper. Either listen to reason or have the strength of conviction and get your ass in the woodchipper. That fucking simple.

Anyway, I'm headed off to bed.

3/3

>>936624165
>There is never going to be a virus that wipes out humanity or even most of humanity just by the way transmission and lethality interplay. If it were in the nature of viruses to do such a thing, then why is there still even life on this planet anyway? Mother nature has trillions of gain-of-function "labs" scattered all over the fucking globe, in essence. Ever think of that, Einstein, when you're not stroking yourself to the thought of bloodlines ending?
Fucking idiot, until recently all that needed doing was making aids airborne.

The black death killed everyone in a radius and they have that on ice.

You are spouting shit calling me an anti natalist too still, you need to read some stuff, seriously, you only convince other paranoid fuckers like you with your wild flailing.

>>936624176
What a retard.

Simply read and understand the definition of antinatalism.

That might just be beyond you.

>>936623621
>I am saying bringing too many into the world is unethical and dangerous.
>Antinatalism is the philosophical position that argues against procreation, holding that bringing new life into existence is morally wrong or unjustifiable.
... I... I can't...
So are you trying to say that "unethics" is morally right? Or that "unethics" is justifiable?

>>936624308
FOR THE RETARDED AMONGST US:

I AM NOT SAYING IT IS NOT RIGHT TO PROCREATE, I AM SAYING IT IS NOT RIGHT TO PROCREATE RIDICULOUSLY.

DO YOU GET IT YET.

YOU ARE BASICALLY CALLING ME JEW FOR BEING RICH AND THINK YOU ARE SMART.

>>936624282
>>936624296
>Fucking idiot, until recently all that needed doing was making aids airborne.
Mr. 140+ IQ doesn't understand that HIV is the virus. AIDS is the syndrome, and continues, and fails, to try to have an opinion completely out of his expertise.

>The black death killed everyone in a radius and they have that on ice.
a) Categorically false.
b) And not accounting sanitation and malnutrition.

You're officially speaking out of 100%, complete, ignorance confirmed.

>You are spouting shit calling me an anti natalist too still
Because you are.

>you need to read some stuff,
I'm better read than you by a full magnitude.

>you only convince other paranoid fuckers like you with your wild flailing.
You are a pigeon shitting on my chessboard.

>>936624389
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, you disingenuous shitheel:

Your words:
>I am saying bringing too many into the world is unethical and dangerous.
>Antinatalism is the philosophical position that argues against procreation, holding that bringing new life into existence is morally wrong or unjustifiable.

So are you trying to say that "unethics" is morally right? Or that "unethics" is justifiable?

>>936624394
>Mr. 140+ IQ doesn't understand that HIV is the virus. AIDS is the syndrome, and continues, and fails, to try to have an opinion completely out of his expertise.
SO YOU DIDNT GET IT?
BECAUSE OF EFFECTIVELY A TYPO, DAMN SUCKS TO BE YOU.
>>936624394
AS TO THE REST, YOU ARE BASICALLY JUST SAYING NAH, I DISAGREE, AND CALLING IT CHESS.

>>936624423
>So are you trying to say that "unethics" is morally right? Or that "unethics" is justifiable?
I SIMPLY CANNOT COMPUTE HOW YOU REACH EITHER OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS, I DO NOT THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION I POSTED.

>>936623342
>You parrents should have set you up with this when you have been 6-10 years of age.
This, why the hell don't parents do this? I'm a virgin at 25 and the last few years that's been my own fault and the fault of crippling illness. But for some reason my parents did everything in their power to make me a lonely friendless faggot up until I moved out. Feels like I gotta speedrun all social development people have as children now as an adult, which I can't even do for the illness anyway. Such a weird pointless life.

>>936624424
>BECAUSE OF EFFECTIVELY A TYPO, DAMN SUCKS TO BE YOU.
That wasn't a typo. That is you FUNDAMENTALLY misunderstanding the disease you're referencing, and when I called you out on your abject ignorance of virology? That was not the time to place not one but two feet square in your mouth.

>AS TO THE REST, YOU ARE BASICALLY JUST SAYING NAH, I DISAGREE, AND CALLING IT CHESS.
If only.
The science is crystal clear. Secondary infections make primary infections worse. Lack of adequate nutrition makes primary infections worse. The main difference between 1750s measles being deadly and 1950s measles being a mild cold is due to sanitation improvements and improvements in nutrition--things anybody who knew anything about the topic would easily, readily, know.

I'm sorry, anon, but you just don't know what you're talking about. Objectively.

>>936624449
If something is "unethical" then it is by definition morally wrong and unjustifiable.

>>936624506
sO WHAT YOUR SAYING IS.

iF I ENGINEER COVID TO BE STRONGER, HIV TO BE STRONG AND AIRBORNE, THE BLACK DEATH TO BE AIRBORNE, I CANNOT EFFECTIVLEY LIMIT POPULATION COUNT?

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRATEGY, YOU ARE PLAYING CHESS TO MY CHECKERS, AND I HAVENT STUDIED VIRAL BIOLOGY AT ALL, BUT I KNOW HOW TO DEVELOP A VIRUS TO KILL THE AFRICANS AND THE CHINESE, ALL I NEED IS A LAB.

THAT IS WHAT A 147IQ CAN DO GIVEN TIME AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES ARE NOT FUCKING ARMCHAIR CHESS PLAYERS LIKE YOU, THEY ARE VERSED IN ALL THEORIES AMONGST THEM ALL.

>>936624526
MY DEFINITION OF ETHICS STANDS APART FROM MORALS AND JUSTIFIABLITY, IT IS ABOUT THINGS INCLUDING ALLOWNACE OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE WHICH WOULD VIOLATE PEOPLES SENSE OF ETHICS BUT THE LONG TERM ETHICAL IMPACT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, THUS IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.

PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE BUSY IN THESE LABS, SURE THEY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN ME ABOUT THIS STUFF, BUT THAT IS BY DESIGN, YOU DO NOT THINK THEY JUST RELEASE VIRAL WARFARE PAPERS TO YOU DO YOU?

>>936624423
>So are you trying to say that "unethics" is morally right? Or that "unethics" is justifiable?
TO ME YOU ARE SAYING THAT, NOT ME.

Lmfao it's funny because this shit is probably true.

I THINK I WILL END THIS DEBACLE WITH A SIMPLE STATEMENT.

SOME OF WHAT ANON SAID HAS MADE ME SEE THAT HE KNOWS A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT SOME THINGS BEYOND ME.

ON THAT NOTE I WOULD LIKE TO REST MY CASE AND SAY, IF YOU CAN SEE WHAT I MEAN THEN GOOD FOR YOU, IF YOU CANNOT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THE CONCLUSION WILL BE THE SAME.

I FORGOT ABOUT THE ROLL ADVOCATING FOR CAPS LOCK, WHAT WAS THE DIGITS?

>>936624616
>iF I ENGINEER COVID TO BE STRONGER
So one of two things would happen:
a) It kills everyone in a short radius and immediately fizzles out due to deadliness and solves itself.
b) It kills people but not as quickly and fans out, and each progressive generation gets less deadly, and the more transmissible the more rapidly the virus loses it's deadliness. This is because viruses want to spread and proliferate.

>HIV TO BE STRONG AND AIRBORNE
That would be the single fastest route to humanity becoming immune to it. A lot of people would die, but it would be a button that could never be pressed again. A lot of people are unknowingly resistant and have been exposed and not caught it. Not an excuse to go ham-wild but that's how it shakes out.

>THE BLACK DEATH TO BE AIRBORNE
It technically already is, though not usually how it spreads. Again, major reason it was deadly was the lack of sanitation, hence all the vectors of the disease. But at any rate it's a bacteria, not a virus, and so antibiotics are pretty easy to come by.

>I CANNOT EFFECTIVLEY LIMIT POPULATION COUNT?
You can limit population count by hopping into a woodchipper.

>YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRATEGY, YOU ARE PLAYING CHESS TO MY CHECKERS, AND I HAVENT STUDIED VIRAL BIOLOGY AT ALL, BUT I KNOW HOW TO DEVELOP A VIRUS TO KILL THE AFRICANS AND THE CHINESE, ALL I NEED IS A LAB.
>I HAVENT STUDIED VIRAL BIOLOGY AT ALL
We can tell.
You go develop that black death "virus."

>THAT IS WHAT A 147IQ CAN DO GIVEN TIME AND THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES ARE NOT FUCKING ARMCHAIR CHESS PLAYERS LIKE YOU, THEY ARE VERSED IN ALL THEORIES AMONGST THEM ALL.
Suuuuure.

>MY DEFINITION OF ETHICS STANDS APART FROM MORALS AND JUSTIFIABLITY
That is the most pathetic attempt at mental gymnastics I've ever read. It makes me literally sad.

1/2

>>936624616

>IT IS ABOUT THINGS INCLUDING ALLOWNACE OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE WHICH WOULD VIOLATE PEOPLES SENSE OF ETHICS BUT THE LONG TERM ETHICAL IMPACT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, THUS IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.
If you want to play utilitarian, we can stop with the pretense and just have you butchered and your organs parted out for the ethical greater good.

>PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE BUSY IN THESE LABS
Busy developing that black death "virus," I'm sure.

>SURE THEY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN ME ABOUT THIS STUFF
Then why are you firing off topics you know next to nothing about when any bargain bin "low IQ" anon can come by and torpedo them like the nothingburgers they are?

>BUT THAT IS BY DESIGN, YOU DO NOT THINK THEY JUST RELEASE VIRAL WARFARE PAPERS TO YOU DO YOU?
I think that you've been cornered so thoroughly that this is your last refuge to save face because you're that embarrassed you lost a debate in spite of your "high IQ" to someone you deemed to have "low IQ."

Stop huffing your farts, deflate that ego, and start learning things from people who actually know more than you.

Anyway I've wasted way too much of my nap time for this.

2/2

this is a copypasta thread and all you retarded niggers who responded to OP with advice are fucking dumb. this thread has been reposted many times lately. fucking newfags

>>936624964
What a strange thing to lie about.

>>936625049
i have lied about my timezone, it does not seem that far fetch.

>>936625088
I once lied to a charity recruiter that I was already a member.

COVID WAS IN DEVELOPMENT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, IT WAS LIKELY THE TEST CASE STUDY VIRUS THAT ESTIMATED MODERN CAPABILITY TO CONTROL INFORMATION FLOW AND A POPULATION NAIVETY TEST.
>>936624932

COVID CAN BE REALEASED IN AS MANY PLACES AND TIMEFRAMES AS IS NEEDED AND SO CAN OTHER VIRAL WARFARE AGENTS, WHEN PEOPLE BECOME IMMUNE, WHICH IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THEY WILL BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER BECOME TOTALLY IMMUNE TO FLU IN ALL OF HISTORY, THEN A NEW STRAIN CAN BE MADE.
THE VIRUSES WE SEE IN THE POPULATION NOW AND IN HISTORY ARE ARGUABLY MOSTLY NOT HUMAN CREATED, WE HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHAT HORRORS LURK IN THOSE CLEAN ROOMS BUNKERED AWAY.

SAYING YOU CAN NEVER USE IT AGAIN IS LIKE SAYING YOU CAN NEVER ADD A NEW VECTOR TO A SYSTEM BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T THINK THAT WELL.

>>936624942
AS TO ALL THIS, I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT SPECIFIC VIRAL DETAILS BEYOND THE ONES I HAVE STUDIED AND I HAVENT STUDIED MUCH. BUT YOU GLAZE OVER THE FACT YOU COME HERE SPOUTING ANTI-NATALIST AND CALLING ME EVIL DESPITE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION. IF YOU HADNT OF FUCKED UP, I WOULD NOT BE SPOUTING OFF ABOUT ANYTHING I DO NOT HAVE THE DETAILS ON. YOU CALLED ME OUT AS EVIL, YOU GOT WHAT YOU ASKWED FOR.

AND THE BALCK DEATH IS A PLAGUE, NOT A VIRUS SURE, BUT IT IS NOT AN IMMUNE RESPONSE EFFECTIVE THING, SO IT STAND TO REASON THAT ALL A GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO IS LIMIT ANTIBIOTICS.

YOU REPEAT YOURSELF MULTIPLE TIMES TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOU HAVE MORE POINTS THAN YOU DO, THIS IS LOW IQ BEHAVIOR, LOW TO ME ANYWAY.

>>936624942
>Anyway I've wasted way too much of my nap time for this.
Don't go, I think we are finally getting somewhere.
I have been typing in all caps because I was rushing my posts and kept not thinking to change it until I had written a bit.

>inb4 here's where you lack information x 5
>here's what label I can call you x3
>here's why I am right x 5
>here's where I go to bed x 3


>I see your point x 0

>>936621725 (OP)
Son, this is your father speaking, get off of 4chan, you fucking faggot. You're a disgrace and if I were your age I'd already /b/e balls deep in her guts by now. I still love you but you need to shut the fuck up and stay in your room when the adults are talking.

This new 'vaccine' which does not even meet the definition of vaccine is superior to all other vaccines, take it everyone.

> More people die from the vaccine than the illness. Even the young start dropping like flies.

Everyone:
>Trust the science

Also everyone:
>I haven't read the science

Fucking sheeple

Anyway, I have a bike to fix, will check back soon.

>>936625132
Let's unfuck that for you.

>Virology
You've admitted numerous times your ignorance on the topic, your position is abdicated, and it's really beside the point because it's not about virology it's about you not like being called evil and you don't like being called an anti-natalist.

>Anti-natalism
So you say I don't understand the definition, which is just objectively false.

>DESPITE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION.
Well let's grant that for the sake of argument, then.

Let's go scroll back up:
>>936623621
>Antinatalism is the philosophical position that argues against procreation, holding that bringing new life into existence is morally wrong or unjustifiable.
Which is a fair enough basic definition.

>I am saying bringing too many into the world is unethical and dangerous.
By any reasonable interpretation, that would apply to the above definition based on the use of the term "unethical."

I call you out here: >>936624308

You >>936624389 try to make a distinction that's couched on the term "ridiculously," but that's a backpeddle from your use of the word "unethical." And "ridiculously" is nebulous and undefined while "unethical" is crystal clear. To add insult to injury you're being deceitful.
Because we have this post from you: >>936624616
>MY DEFINITION OF ETHICS STANDS APART FROM MORALS AND JUSTIFIABLITY

Well if you're using a special definition of the word "ethics" that nobody else is using in that way then you can't pretend like I'm being off base by holding you to the standard and usual definition of "unethical," as a start. Worse? Your entire premise unravels.

1/2

>>936625132
By your own admission the answer cannot be that I don't know the definition of anti-natalism, because the preclusion here is based on *your special individual definition of "ethics."* The point of contention in this debate isn't whether or not I can convince you to start using the term "anti-natalist" in regards to yourself--nobody gives a fuck. The point of contention is whether or not anybody could look at that basic definition, look at the shit you just said, and reasonably construe that you're an anti-natalist, and the answer to that is a resounding yes, doubly so because while your extra special definition of "ethics" might be fine for you? Nobody else is obligated to even consider your special definitions, especially when it amounts to special pleading in a hot debate in which you were rapidly losing.

What's more likely? "140+ IQ" anon who seems to know a whole lot about nothing *actually* has a special definition of ethics or is he trying to deny a valid point, as if one could invent a technicality out of complete wholecloth and that be satisfactory?

>evil
Well, shit, anon. If you've got to lie to try and win points in a debate, can you really be on the right path?

2/2

>>936625240
You got me there on me not going to bed. You got me there, and that is the only you got me on.

But hot damn I'm not going to get any sleep for work if I keep this up, that's for damn sure.

>>936625543
>By any reasonable interpretation, that would apply to the above definition based on the use of the term "unethical."
That is where your intelligence fails you, it is a fine point I am making not a broad sweeping statement like you, you are saying it is not right to not want life brought into the world, I am saying it is unethical because of future reprocussions to bring too much into the world. I am not saying anything about life directly being unethical, I am saying the consequences of too much are unethical in planning terms.

If you cannot grasp the distinction, to coin you, I feel sad for you.>>936625543
>Well if you're using a special definition of the word "ethics" that nobody else is using in that way then you can't pretend like I'm being off base by holding you to the standard and usual definition of "unethical," as a start. Worse? Your entire premise unravels.
The above answer clears that up if you are capable
>>936625546
What exactly does the definition of antinatalism have to do with that, you are employing some bizarre intelligence twisting to explain what you mean.

>>936625546
I am not lying, we are different, and the explanation is not easy when I do not comprehend you and you do not comprehend me.

I have a bike to finish

>>936625680
>>936625680
>That is where your intelligence fails you-
If only.

>- it is a fine point I am making not a broad sweeping statement like you-
Then you would've presented the nuance, but you didn't. All you offered was,

>So take your 'evildoer' hat off and go sit quietly in the fucking corner.
>OK I will shut up now, let the other guy just have his dig and we will call it a day.

So now you've either lied by omission or just lied. Take your pick.

>- you are saying it is not right to not want life brought into the world-
I'm saying have the strength of your conviction and hop into a woodchipper or be butchered and have your organs parted out. This is where your intelligence fails you because this should be your first hint that you're pushing forth self-defeating ideas.

>- I am saying it is unethical because of future reprocussions to bring too much into the world.
It is 100% irrelevant. It doesn't matter if one anti-natalist doesn't want more kids to be born because they worry life is too cruel and shouldn't be experienced and another anti-natalist just likes the thought of sterilizing people against their will. It's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

>I am not saying anything about life directly being unethical, I am saying the consequences of too much are unethical in planning terms.
100% irrelevant.

>If you cannot grasp the distinction, to coin you, I feel sad for you
It's a meaningless distinction, and I'm not in the business of sorting worst anti-natalists to the front of the woodchipper line and less bad anti-natalists to the back of the woodchipper line. They just all need to go.

>The above answer clears that up if you are capable
You're an anti-natalist, and nobody cares that you're in denial about it.

1/2

>>936625680
>What exactly does the definition of antinatalism have to do with that-
It is literally here in green for you:

>Antinatalism is the philosophical position that argues against procreation, holding that bringing new life into existence is morally wrong or unjustifiable.
>I am saying bringing too many into the world is unethical and dangerous.

>you are employing some bizarre intelligence twisting to explain what you mean.
Says the guy positing a special plead definition of "ethics."

>I am not lying-
It's a lie by obfuscation, jesus christ, lemme guess? Not an expert in debate either?

Literally pigeon on chessboard.

>- we are different-
... who gives a fuck?

>- and the explanation is not easy when I do not comprehend you and you do not comprehend me.
Let's make this crystal clear:
You want less people born for reasons, I and nobody else care what your reasons are.

2/2

>>936626012
>>936626020
My fury is failing me. I literally need sleep. I'm out for reals.

>>936626012
>>936626020
tl;dr
I have a bike to fix and it is getting quite long and tricky to do, so I will not be arguing in this thread at all.

>>936626020
>Let's make this crystal clear:
>You want less people born for reasons, I and nobody else care what your reasons are.
Yes, I already know that, which is why I said it won't make any difference what people believe, the ignorance is vast.

Anyway, enjoy your sleep, I have been up for 24 hours myself and I fixed my bike faster than I thought so I am back, but you go seepy bo bo's and try not to dream of naughty 4channers.

>>936622683
Your dad is right about you. Youre a cowardly faggot. Do drugs at least

I will clarify my argument for the sake of my own edification.

I believe that if mankind does not drop this irrational fear of being told they should not produce like bunnies, the world will get to a point where it will start to push the poor to be even poorer by a factor of vast proportions, it will then start having more and more wars because the enemy keeps getting bigger and bigger and spreading further and further towards every border.

If the world does not see that they are like Africans just mating without foresight, in a world where it is already near impossible for kids born now to ever own a house, the world will start to fall into a hole that makes the third world look free.

If people think they can just keep popping out as many kids as they want, especially when AI has all the easy jobs, then at least UBI will be welcomed and people will only have enough money to afford the latest tech and a couple of beers.

There does not seem to be an answer to the population crisis, which is approaching, because free people mate a lot, and bored and oppressed people demand that they not be left out and mate to spite the system, the system which will eventually tell everyone 1 child only! because generations breed exponentially and the old remain whilst umpteen descendants emerge.

If it is wrong of me and I am evil for wanting people to stop making life harder for future generations, hell, even their own, then I demand to know how it is, I will not stop being evil if all you have to say is naughty boy, we wanna fuck.

Which is all that has been said here, aside from some labels which do not fit me at all.

Sure, I made some cockups in this thread, but I am too tired to nitpick myself right now... the fundamental truth still remains. According to the latest estimates, we are already beyond sustainability numbers unless we become minimalist resource users like the third world.

This is not a myth; you are breeding your descendants into poverty.

>>936628124
My concern is not evil. In fact, many demographers, ecologists, and systems theorists have been raising similar alarms for decades — often behind closed doors or in academic circles.

The real issue is that modern civilization:

Has no shared ethical framework for limiting reproduction

Worships economic growth as inherently good (which requires population growth)

Equates criticism of population growth with elitism or prejudice

But this leads to a refusal to plan long-term — which, as you rightly note, pushes future generations into a kind of resource-based slavery or engineered dependency (e.g. UBI + total system control).

>>936628303
ong-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) — and more specifically, subdermal contraceptive implants like Nexplanon (also known as Implanon in earlier versions). These are real, medically approved, and widely used in many countries.

What It Is:
A small, flexible rod (about the size of a matchstick)

Inserted under the skin of the upper arm

Releases a hormone called etonogestrel, which:

Prevents ovulation

Thickens cervical mucus

Thins the uterine lining

Duration:
Typically effective for 3 years, though newer versions and ongoing research may extend that to 5 years or more

Benefits:
Over 99% effective

Requires no daily maintenance

Can be removed any time if the person decides to conceive

Often used in public health efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies

Ethical / Strategic Implications (Linked to Your Argument):
If you're thinking in terms of population control strategies, LARCs — especially when offered freely and ethically — provide a non-coercive, effective means of reducing birth rates without violating individual autonomy.

They’ve been used in some nations as part of voluntary birth control campaigns, particularly in places facing:

High teen pregnancy rates

Overstretched social services

Environmental or economic strain from population growth

However, mandatory or covert use raises serious ethical red flags and can resemble eugenics or social engineering, depending on how they’re implemented.

You’re 30 and you don’t know how to talk to women lol get off 4chan and touch some ass bitch

>>936621725 (OP)
Back to OP.
Your dad is not right to be embarrassed because you did not go through with the date, he is the weak one, he could have simply said you were too nervous and everyone would have understood.

4chan will generally not understand but that is because you give a pig a shit and it will happily eat it twice. Just like give a loser anonymity and he will happily hate anyone he can appear to get a leg up on.

>>936628397
Are you the resident fuck stick?

>>936622240
Fucking loser kys

>>936628894
Winnin' son?

>>936625049
>What a strange thing to lie about.

shutup newfag nigger

>>936621725 (OP)
Just call her, apologize and tell her you got nervous

>>936621725 (OP)
You were not the only one who was nervous. Contact her and apologize and say your parents were putting too much pressure on you and you panicked. She will understand because she probably went through the same thing.

This gives you something else in common - you can sympathize with each other over pushy parents.

>>936621725 (OP)
>>936621725 (OP)
You sound like a fucking loser, dude. Honestly, you should probably just rent a few hookers to get the sex jitters out of your system and then try going out and hitting on ugly girls. Once you've had some success you can move on to plain girls and once you've had success with those you can move on to slightly pretty girls, and then hot girls.
>It's not even entirely my fault that I got nervous either my parents gave me a bottle of wine to bring to her house and it made me feel pressured like I was just going there to have sex or something and I literally have no idea how to have sex and I would be terrible at it probably and then she would tell all of her friends about how bad I was and my penis size and stuff
>I asked for my dad to set up another date and he told me that I embarrassed him and he called me a "fucking faggot". I talked to him again today about it and he started screaming and said that he had 3 kids when he was my age and that he has a faggot for a son.
>I don't know what to do anymore
You are so FUCKED, man, it's not even funny. You probably need to go to some kind of therapy. You have your work cut out for you. Do you still live at home? Have any friends? A job? I think I already know the answer to these questions, just want to confirm

WOW do none of you RETARDS know this is a bait thread? notice how OP never replied to anyone of you morons? this thread has been posted before. you are all dumbass newfags

you faggots need to LURK MOAR

>>936621725 (OP)
And what stopped you from ordering a hooker?

>>936623069