Birgit Kos in candid

[Magnum Opus]

You guys aren't even arguing on the same wavelength at this point.

I don't have to agree with all the girls he likes. Yes he likes Palvin, I don't. We don't have a secret rating system that we exchanged in private and use to argue against you lol.
My ratings are purely based on biomarkers for health, f.e. a low degree gonial angle allowing for most masseter strength, intact and dense collagen indicating prime-age, extremely well formed maxilla.
That's as objective as you can be.

For clarification, that's what attractiveness depends on in every species, there's no selection taking place if there wouldn't be biomarkers allowing them to filter out fit and unfit potential mates. Organisms don't find certain features attractive just for the sake of it, it depends on how beneficial it is in a particular environment.
Most of your models have an unideal GA, an unideal maxilla and mid bodies, they are in no way 5SD above mean.

 

[Magnum Opus]

op doesn't even know what standard deviation is jfl. the lowest possible option on his polls are like top 0.1%.

inb4 he quotes "op doesn't even know what standard deviation is" and says "Ironic."

 

[Reckless Turtle]

op doesn't even know what standard deviation is jfl. the lowest possible option on his polls are like top 0.1%.

Shockingly, the usual pea brains have shown up all at once to attempt to correct me in a /r/confidentlyincorrect manner.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

My ratings are purely based on biomarkers for health, f.e. a low degree gonial angle allowing for most masseter strength, intact and dense collagen indicating prime-age, extremely well formed maxilla.
That's as objective as you can be.

For clarification, that's what attractiveness depends on in every species, there's no selection taking place if there wouldn't be biomarkers allowing them to filter out fit and unfit potential mates. Organisms don't find certain features attractive just for the sake of it, it depends on how beneficial it is in a particular environment.
Most of your models have an unideal GA, an unideal maxilla and mid bodies, they are in no way 5SD above mean.

 

[Magnum Opus]

At this point just wrap it up and quit.

I provide an explanation for your sand grain-sized brain, as to why I rate the way I do and what it's based on, and you reply with a troll post, devoid of any substance. Can you switch off to incels.is? Alternatively buy the domain geneticdeadends.is and wait for people like RecessedSubhumanX to join you over there, good look with that. There you could even finally be met with the attention you crave due to being the forum owner.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

your sand grain-sized brain

Ironic.

and you reply with a troll post, devoid of any substance.

Ironic.

Can you switch off to incels.is?

Ironic.

Alternatively buy the domain geneticdeadends.is

Ironic.

There you could even finally be met with the attention you crave

Ironic.

 

[Magnum Opus]

Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.

Kill yourself

 

[exo]

Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.


Ironic.

this is what defeat looks like

 

[Reckless Turtle]

this is what defeat looks like

Place your vote

 

[eduardkoopman]

View attachment 2310750
It's okay, she's only human too! That's what someone 4.5-4.75 SD above mean looks like while laughing!
She has an ideal maxilla, which is indicated by her beautiful nasolabial folds, which clearly already justifies the 4.5-4.75 above SD rating.
View attachment 2310752

Palvin has her fair share of flaws.
But overall still gigastacy imo. She has top tier eyes area, and hip-to-waist ratio. Which carry her, imo. Still i agree, she has quit a few flaws on face also. Perfection isn't out there

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Palvin has her fair share of flaws.
But overall still gigastacy imo. She has top tier eyes area, and hip-to-waist ratio. Which carry her, imo. Still i agree, she has quit a few flaws on face also. Perfection isn't out there

Place your vote

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Current average = 8.7/10

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Spoiler: Summoning voters from previous polls (reply to be removed or added)

@;-;
@🐶🐶🐶🐶🐶🐶🐶
@0kami123
@12PSLsubhuman
@5'7 zoomer
@5OuttaTen
@6’1cel
@a30
@Ach1lles
@actual9cmjawslayer
@adungonu55
@aesthetic beauty
@AlainDelonFan
@AlexAP
@Aloft
@anadeusstolemyname
@andy9432
@Anonymous Member
@antsosa
@Arditi
@Artemis
@aryanretard
@Ascend_forever
@ascendedd
@AscendingHero
@ascension
@Aseancell
@AsGoodAsItGets
@Av0nr
@Aypo129
@Bakin donuts 🍩
@Banasura
@banks
@bddenjoyer
@Be_ConfidentBro
@beachdude123
@Beastimmung
@begoodlookingtheory
@BigBoy
@birdpersone
@Bitchwhipper2
@Blackgymmax
@Bloatedindeed
@Blond3cel
@bluepilled
@BongMog
@Brad
@BrahminBoss
@bwrauycnee
@cabbage
@caiolindo
@capybara
@Chadeep
@Chadrapist
@ChicoChicowski
@chiisfow
@Chinacurry
@chrisbauer
@chrisN
@chrollo
@Cigarette
@cillianmurphycel
@ConfusedBolivian
@Constantin Denis
@copemaxxedturanid
@copesthenics
@Coronabeer
@Crusile
@crybaby
@crymilk
@Cutecel2001
@cytoplasm
@D1390pilled
@Danish_Retard
@Debetro
@DefinitelyNT
@DeformedCell
@DelonLover1999
@delonregen
@DicedFeta
@Dr. Greenberg
@duckducknoose
@Dystopian
@eduardkoopman
@elzde95
@emeraldglass
@Enfant terrible
@EvCu65
@Fairestknight
@fandrewpandu
@Filippo
@flippasav
@FlyingElephant
@foidaddict
@FunkyFlamingo
@Gargantuan
@goldpill
@gonion wanter
@goo25
@gp8
@greatape11
@gymmaxedhorse
@HeightPilledum
@HitAndRun
@holdin'on
@hormonetherapy
@howtallareyou
@htnorbust
@Iblamejordan
@Icon
@IHateMyself
@IHeightMogU
@INB
@Indagator
@ineonx
@inspector
@J5F0O1VJe00
@javab
@JL~
@joao
@JoeSchmoe12
@joeveniro
@john2
@JohnDoe
@jrobts.
@julian111
@justbentbro
@justinzayn
@justleavemealone
@kality
@Kama
@Kater Maxxing
@kekamphetamine
@Kerbouchard
@khvirgin
@KING REIDYZ
@kuroro
@kyb
@kyrre
@LaIcriday
@leanislaw
@leonardu
@leopold123
@lightskinbengali
@lightskincel.
@LimaDummy
@Lone Wolf
@longjohnmong
@LooksmaxxHopeful
@lordgandy2000
@Loveland
@MadTwatter
@Manana
@ManzareK
@marauder
@Mastermind
@MatheusCqb
@metagross
@mizrahi_hater
@MoggerChad
@MongolTurk
@moolahmole24
@mrriceguy
@mug
@N3XT
@Napoleon de Geso
@needtobePSL
@NegativeNorwood
@NerdcelThundercok
@nerdycomrade
@Newday
@Nightrunner
@nika
@nordicfoidslayer23
@normie_joe
@norwegianfreak
@Oberyn
@OCDisneyChad
@ongongfr
@only10inch
@OogaBooba
@orb 2.0
@overtier1011
@PaduaSlayer
@paris
@Perfection
@pig_face
@Pleiadian
@PointOfNoReturn
@poopoohead
@Preston
@Pretty
@Prince88
@PubertyMaxxer
@RAITEIII
@RAMU KAKA
@Ranjeet Dipshit
@RecessedChinCel
@Reckless Turtle
@Red Fox
@Reformed
@ReinerGeist1
@reptiles
@RetardSubhuman
@ripcordgod1
@Ritalincell
@Rixinuj
@RoadtoCurryChad
@rocoveron007
@rooman
@ROTTING
@rrrrrr8526
@ryangoslinglover377
@Sabbir0404a
@saint
@schizolool
@sebsyx
@Sens
@serbiangandy
@Shekel
@Shieda_Kayn
@shortcel88
@Sick
@Sixdaysinfallujah66
@SixPack
@Skyness
@SlavicGeneral
@slavicpsycho
@SocietyIsSolipsistic
@Solaris
@soldier_puzzle662
@solid7/10
@Soumyadip
@spark
@Spiͯriͯtualcel
@SteveRogers
@stpzkmpfwg
@Struggler03
@studymaxxer
@SubHumanHere
@subhumantosubhumans
@Survivor95
@sтᴀʀʙoʏ
@teemowhite
@temporomandibular32
@the BULL
@Thegreatone
@THEMOGGER
@TheReckons
@thesunalwaysrises
@Thorsten
@Throb The Builder
@ToTheTop
@TRUE_CEL
@truthpilled
@try2beme
@TUSSELEIF
@Tylermax
@Tyronius Maximus
@uberfuckchad
@UglyItalian
@user1728482728
@Venommm_
@wastedpotential
@WeAreBoundless
@Whatever0
@WHITECURRY
@WhiteGoodman
@whitegymmax
@wificonnector
@Willmogulater
@Wiqfi
@WishIwasChico
@Xangsane
@YawnWokeuperino
@YEATT
@yelyseiblud
@Yuno_howitez
@zainab
@zan
@Zer0/∞
@Zonar
@zsombi

 

[Debetro]

 

[DelonLover1999]

Ironic.


Ironic.

why do you so often resort to this instead of actually engaging in the argument?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

why do you so often resort to this instead of actually engaging in the argument?

By the time I'm resorting to that there's nothing to engage.

 

[DelonLover1999]

I don't have to agree with all the girls he likes. Yes he likes Palvin, I don't. We don't have a secret rating system that we exchanged in private and use to argue against you lol.
My ratings are purely based on biomarkers for health, f.e. a low degree gonial angle allowing for most masseter strength, intact and dense collagen indicating prime-age, extremely well formed maxilla.
That's as objective as you can be.

View attachment 2310772
For clarification, that's what attractiveness depends on in every species, there's no selection taking place if there wouldn't be biomarkers allowing them to filter out fit and unfit potential mates. Organisms don't find certain features attractive just for the sake of it, it depends on how beneficial it is in a particular environment.
Most of your models have an unideal GA, an unideal maxilla and mid bodies, they are in no way 5SD above mean.

I personally think you’re putting too much emphasis on gonial angle. It’s not that important for females, and even then, most of the models he posts actually have pretty good ones. I can list (of the top of my head): Mini Anden, Lini Oliveira, Vika Bronova, Malena Costa, Margot Robbie, Olivia Wilde, Doutzen Kroes, Daniela Pestova, Claudia Schiffer. All of these have very fg and biomarkers.

But I agree with the general sentiment of your comment, tho.

 

[DelonLover1999]

By the time I'm resorting to that there's nothing to engage.

Not always. Sometimes it’s a cop out because you don’t wanna fully explain your position, but tbh it doesn’t really matter, it’s up to you anyway.

It’s just weird that whenever you have your back against the wall in a discussion, you seem to be in denial about it. Not saying this is what happened here, but I’ve seen it in other threads. More recently, in the one with the blonde model who has a strange profile.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Not always. Sometimes it’s a cop out because you don’t wanna fully explain your position, but tbh it doesn’t really matter, it’s up to you anyway.

It’s just weird that whenever you have your back against the wall in a discussion, you seem to be in denial about it. Not saying this is what happened here, but I’ve seen it in other threads. More recently, in the one with the blonde model who has a strange profile.

Ironic.

Explanation: you're accusing me of not engaging the argument while simultaneously not engaging the comments I'm responding to with the word "ironic."

 

[DelonLover1999]

Ironic.

Explanation: you're accusing me of not engaging the argument while simultaneously not engaging the comments I'm responding to with the word "ironic."

Why would I engage with them? They were meant for you.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Why would I engage with them? They were meant for you.

If you are claiming that I am "copping out" then it would be justified to read the context of the alleged argument in order to attempt to understand what could possibly be ironic about the statement that allegedly warranted a response of "ironic."

 

[DelonLover1999]

If you are claiming that I am "copping out" then it would be justified to read the context of the alleged argument in order to attempt to understand what could possibly be ironic about the statement that allegedly warranted a response of "ironic."

I understand why you used it. I always do. Doesn’t mean it’s not a cop out. You had the choice to actually put fourth an argument, but chose a one liner.

As I said, I don’t really care one way or another. If you judged that the discussion was no longer heading nowhere, then fair play. But beware that it looks like you’re unwilling to get your hands dirty and actually go all the way in the debate.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

I understand why you used it. I always do. Doesn’t mean it’s not a cop out. You had the choice to actually put fourth an argument, but chose a one liner.

As I said, I don’t really care one way or another. If you judged that the discussion was no longer heading nowhere, then fair play. But beware that it looks like you’re unwilling to get your hands dirty and actually go all the way in the debate.

Ironic.

Explanation: you're accusing me of not engaging the argument while simultaneously not engaging the comments I'm responding to with the word "ironic."

Furthermore, the entire basis of the comment you have just written is you "copping out."

 

[DelonLover1999]

Furthermore, the entire basis of the comment you have just written is you "copping out."

How? Again, why should I have to engage in a conversation just because I accused you of not engaging in it? It wasn’t my conversation to begin with. Even if it is a bit ironic, that’s beside the point.

Maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying, this back and forth has been the most verbose I’ve ever had here (partially my fault), and it’s getting kinda tiring tbh.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

How? Again, why should I have to engage in a conversation just because I accused you of not engaging in it? It wasn’t my conversation to begin with. Even if it is a bit ironic, that’s beside the point.

Maybe I’m not getting what you’re saying, this back and forth has been the most verbose I’ve ever had here (partially my fault), and it’s getting kinda tiring tbh.

why do you so often resort to this instead of actually engaging in the argument?

You have copped out of addressing this response to your argument because you have not elucidated what I've (allegedly) failed to engage, which is ironic.

By the time I'm resorting to that there's nothing to engage.

 

[DelonLover1999]

You have copped out of addressing this response to your argument because you have not elucidated what I've (allegedly) failed to engage, which is ironic.

You said ironic in response to his comment about not understanding what the irony was. You could’ve just explained that him saying you ‘should step outside, and then reevaluate how gl these models really are’ is ironic because the same could be said of his opinion, which is probably heavily biased by his own online presence.

Lemme ask you something different then. You said that there was nothing to engage with at that point, which I agree.
He was just spewing ad hominem by the time you said the second ‘ironic’. But why do you think it’s the case that you’re one of the most personally attacked users here?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

You could’ve just explained that him saying you ‘should step outside, and then reevaluate how gl these models really are’ is ironic because the same could be said of his opinion, which is probably heavily biased by his own online presence.

You aren't factoring in the additional layers of irony, which make providing an explanation additionally futile.

Are you serious with voting almost every model you make a thread about a 10?

This statement is incorrect on two accounts, because:
1. He has no way of knowing whether I scored a model as a 10.
2. At the time of that comment, I had already rated multiple models as being under 9.5.

Furthermore, I already addressed that here, explaining to him why he was incorrect.

Firstly, she isn't even rated as being 1/3.5 million so you're sperging out on the basis of a strawman because you apparently can't read.

Therefore, he had already demonstrated that he didn't know how "GL" I think the models I post are.

The third point of irony:

5 Standard Deviations are 1 in 3.5 MILLION. Someone like that would be Margot Robbie. In her prime pictures she's even rarer but regarding her candids that fits.
Just to clarify, the one in OP has too many facial flaws to be that rare, same for the body. 1.5 SD are top 13% and when I look at the girls in my grade, 13% fog the one in OP (age range 17-20), so my pick is literally more realistic.

Regarding you, what's additionally ironic is this:

Why would I engage with them? They were meant for you.

Explanation: you chose to engage in an argument in which you lacked context and then proceeded to question why you should engage in said argument.

But why do you think it’s the case that you’re one of the most personally attacked users here?

At the moment it's probably because I'm tagging over 300 people to these threads and responding to some of the comments that arise in order to organically bump the threads.

 

[DelonLover1999]

You aren't factoring in the additional layers of irony, which make providing an explanation additionally futile.


This statement is incorrect on two accounts, because:
1. He has no way of knowing whether I scored a model as a 10.
2. At the time of that comment, I had already rated multiple models as being under 9.5.

Furthermore, I already addressed that here, explaining to him why he was incorrect.


Therefore, he had already demonstrated that he didn't know how "GL" I think the models I post are.

The third point of irony:


Regarding you, what's additionally ironic is this:


Explanation: you chose to engage in an argument in which you lacked context and then proceeded to question why you should engage in said argument.


At the moment it's probably because I'm tagging over 300 people to these threads and responding to some of the comments that arise in order to organically bump the threads.

What about before you were doing this?

You aren't factoring in the additional layers

That doesn’t really enhance your comment to anyone but you. Do you really expect me to try to find more than 1 layer of irony in a comment that was even directed to me?

Regarding you, what's additionally ironic is this:


Explanation: you chose to engage in an argument in which you lacked context and then proceeded to question why you should engage in said argument.

I merely used your comment to kickstart a separate, but related, discussion. I was aware of what you were saying and the previous points. But my main objective was not to to peer review an argument I wasn’t even part of.

I now respectfully withdraw from this discussion. I feel like I’ve written a fucking book but have gotten nowhere.
The last thing I’ll say in this thread (completely unrelated) is that ‘pea brain’ is a middle school tier insult. Put some teeth in your words, from time to time.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

What about before you were doing this?

I wasn't remotely close to being "one of the most personally attacked users here."

Do you really expect me to try to find more than 1 layer of irony in a comment that was even directed to me?

No.

I merely used your comment to kickstart a separate, but related, discussion.

In order for the discussion (more of an argument) to be effective, you would have to specifically identify the points of contention rather than making an ambiguous claim—in this case:

why do you so often resort to this instead of actually engaging in the argument?

 

[DelonLover1999]

I wasn't remotely close to being "one of the most personally attacked users here.”

i’m gonna break my vow just to say: You don’t think you were in the top 25? You get insulted in almost every single discussion you hop in (that I’ve read, obviously), even prior to the mass tagging

What I’m trying to say is: Your debating style is somewhat pretentious, which is frustrating. You sound smug half the time, and it’s not even about the formal language use.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

i’m gonna break my vow just to say: You don’t think you were in the top 25? You get insulted in almost every single discussion you hop in (that I’ve read, obviously), even prior to the mass tagging

Even without mass tagging there would still be a bias due to forum activity (less active users are less likely to be "insulted"). Your perception could also be biased due to you being more likely to read my threads or comments as opposed to the threads/comments of other users.

What I’m trying to say is: Your debating style is somewhat pretentious, which is frustrating. You sound smug half the time, and it’s not even about the formal language use.

The average active user here is overly antagonistic and a solid chunk actively flame people, therefore I doubt that my debating style is leading to what you're suggesting. I don't care whether someone is pretentious; what matters is who's correct.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

Even without mass tagging there would still be a bias due to forum activity (less active users are less likely to be "insulted"). Your perception could also be biased due to you being more likely to read my threads or comments as opposed to the threads/comments of other users.


The average active user here is overly antagonistic and a solid chunk actively flame people, therefore I doubt that my debating style is leading to what you're suggesting. I don't care whether someone is pretentious; what matters is who's correct.

How do you rate the women you choose?

 

[DelonLover1999]

Even without mass tagging there would still be a bias due to forum activity (less active users are less likely to be "insulted"). Your perception could also be biased due to you being more likely to read my threads or comments as opposed to the threads/comments of other users.


The average active user here is overly antagonistic and a solid chunk actively flame people, therefore I doubt that my debating style is leading to what you're suggesting. I don't care whether someone is pretentious; what matters is who's correct.

Fine its biased. But I’m pretty confident if I actually wrote code to scrape the forum and calculate insults per reply, you’d rank very highly

Maybe you don’t care, but most people do. Which is why I stand by my conjecture that your smugness is contributing to it. Aside from that, why would anyone want to antagonize you so heavily in these rating threads? All you do is ask for votes and state for your opinions. Meanwhile, as you’ve pointed out yourself, some users do nothing but curse and moan like idiots.

 

[aesthetic beauty]

Fine its biased. But I’m pretty confident if I actually wrote code to scrape the forum and calculate insults per reply, you’d rank very highly

Maybe you don’t care, but most people do. Which is why I stand by my conjecture that your smugness is contributing to it. Aside from that, why would anyone want to antagonize you so heavily in these rating threads? All you do is ask for votes and state for your opinions. Meanwhile, as you’ve pointed out yourself, some users do nothing but curse and moan like idiots.

It’s because of the mass tagging, model selection, and rating system.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

How do you rate the women you choose?

Spitballing based on this (which I'd argue is objective):

FOG formula

a = standard deviations from the mean for head aesthetics b = standard deviations from the mean for vertical proportions c = standard deviations from the mean for all other bodily proportions FOG score = 5^a * 3^b * 2^c A higher score indicates a FOG (from a purely aesthetic standpoint)...

looksmax.org

Including:

You aren't "blackpilled" if you deny that a significant % of European DNA, >170 cm height, and <22% BF are requirements for apex female aesthetics

I have made separate threads on individual points before: https://looksmax.org/threads/optimal-female-height-poll.456264/ https://looksmax.org/threads/which-of-these-body-categorizations-would-be-able-to-extract-the-most-money-from-men.505791/ Many users here (arguably at least half, from my...

looksmax.org

Potentially subjective factors (worthy of a separate thread):

• Coloring is a negligible aspect for female attractiveness (but blonde hair is never optimal and darker skin tones can potentially outcompete pale skin).
• Straight and slightly convex nasal bridges are attractive for females or are neutral at worst (e.g. Bianca Balti, Fernanda Tavares, Faretta Radic, Katarina Ivanovska).
• Somewhat imperfect upper teeth are fine (e.g., Adriana Lima) but snaggleteeth on the bottom are a failo.
• +5 SD is possible with a flat chest so long as the nipples are dimorphic.
• Thigh thickness realistically doesn't matter much (assuming proper overall leanness).

Related:

How closely do our sexual preferences align (are we competing for the same women)?

Assume the following conditions: For the sake of this discussion, only consider physical attractiveness You acquire exactly 450k USD every week You must have unprotected sex exactly three times per week with the same woman during the week (but you can change women after each week) You must give...

looksmax.org

 

[aesthetic beauty]

Spitballing based on this (which I'd argue is objective):

FOG formula

a = standard deviations from the mean for head aesthetics b = standard deviations from the mean for vertical proportions c = standard deviations from the mean for all other bodily proportions FOG score = 5^a * 3^b * 2^c A higher score indicates a FOG (from a purely aesthetic standpoint)...

looksmax.org

Including:

You aren't "blackpilled" if you deny that a significant % of European DNA, >170 cm height, and <22% BF are requirements for apex female aesthetics

I have made separate threads on individual points before: https://looksmax.org/threads/optimal-female-height-poll.456264/ https://looksmax.org/threads/which-of-these-body-categorizations-would-be-able-to-extract-the-most-money-from-men.505791/ Many users here (arguably at least half, from my...

looksmax.org

Potentially subjective factors (worthy of a separate thread):

• Coloring is a negligible aspect for female attractiveness (but blonde hair is never optimal and darker skin tones can potentially outcompete pale skin).
• Straight and slightly convex nasal bridges are attractive for females or are neutral at worst (e.g. Bianca Balti, Fernanda Tavares, Faretta Radic, Katarina Ivanovska).
• Somewhat imperfect upper teeth are fine (e.g., Adriana Lima) but snaggleteeth on the bottom are a failo.
• +5 SD is possible with a flat chest so long as the nipples are dimorphic.
• Thigh thickness realistically doesn't matter much (assuming proper overall leanness).

Related:

How closely do our sexual preferences align (are we competing for the same women)?

Assume the following conditions: For the sake of this discussion, only consider physical attractiveness You acquire exactly 450k USD every week You must have unprotected sex exactly three times per week with the same woman during the week (but you can change women after each week) You must give...

looksmax.org

Appreciate it. Will read through and respond.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Fine its biased. But I’m pretty confident if I actually wrote code to scrape the forum and calculate insults per reply, you’d rank very highly

Seems like a stretch but maybe @thecel will assist you.

Aside from that, why would anyone want to antagonize you so heavily in these rating threads? All you do is ask for votes and state for your opinions.

Because a lot of people are predisposed to whining (not exclusive to the forum) rather than engaging in strictly logic-based arguments.

 

[john2]

Caged at how much hair she has on her rams. Looks like clouder and anoright were right about white women.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

rams