Anons, what are your red and pink flags for a potential partner?

Are all of those red or are some of them pink?

>I am a bit of a lesbian
All of your kind deserves to be gassed.

all red user.

Lesbian enough that you can have a ffm?

I'm assuming you find some women attractive, too. So, are you saying that I should be gassed for being just like you? Damn, homophobes are hella hypocritical.

Threesome? Eh, maybe. Early in the relationship, though, I'd want to be 100% monogamous.

Sexual feelings towards the same gender is a genetic mutation which goes against nature.

actually the father figure one is pinkish~~

>a genetic mutation
First of all, the evidence doesn't suggest that it's 100% genetic, let alone based on a single mutation.
>which goes against nature
Any kid who passed biology should know that mutations are natural, and, in fact, are necessary for evolution to occur.
Even if a mutation (for example, Down Syndrome) isn't desireable, it's still natural (artificial mutation aside).

>Any kid who passed biology should know that mutations are natural, and, in fact, are necessary for evolution to occur.
Ah but you see, homosexuality prevents reproduction, which is the key to evolution. It therefore completely interrupts the flow of nature.

>supports the electoral college
Are you a literal retard?

Attached: 1542675884188.png (625x626, 1.5M)

She's a lesbian, that explains it all.

>Ah but you see, homosexuality prevents reproduction, which is the key to evolution. It therefore completely interrupts the flow of nature.
By your logic, someone born infertile "interrupts the flow of nature", too.
You see, infertile and homosexual people are important in society since they can adopt the children who are unwanted or abused.

>lesbian
>a woman who is sexually attracted to other women
I mean... technically. However, my current oneitis is a cis male. Bi/pan would be better descriptors.

I loathe the electoral college. It dehumanizes people by making their vote count for less based on where they live. Sickening.

>you're willing to dehumanize people to support your agenda
Not him, but no. I'm willing to vote in favor of my own in-group collective interests. If it comes at the expense of people who don't share those who don't share those interests, then too bad. This is how politics and power dynamics has worked over the course of human civilization, we've just recently substituted political force instead of physical force.
inb4 moral appeals
morality is a spook, and even if it wasnt, you're still subscribing to the morality of slaves.

>wanting the masses to be represented in the government
Big yikes

>Not him, but no. I'm willing to vote in favor of my own in-group collective interests.
You can do that without trying to make the votes of other populations count for less, asshat.
>If it comes at the expense of people who don't share those who don't share those interests, then too bad.
So you'd be okay with a genocide of one race if it benefits your own? Sounds like the reasoning behind many atrocities in human history.
>morality is a spook, and even if it wasnt, you're still subscribing to the morality of slaves.
Lol what?

>wanting special minority interests to be the driving forces behind our government
double yikes

>Lol what?
Sorry, do you believe in any objective basis for the existence of morality?

>50% political bullshit
>50% basic shit

Attached: bait.gif (496x498, 393K)

>he thinks that this isnt what democracy is and always has been
Maximum yikes

>Sorry, do you believe in any objective basis for the existence of morality?
Nope. It's all subjective.

>he
Who's he?

>It's all subjective
Then why are you trying to argue with me on a moral basis, you vapid thot?

I'm 98% sure that you have a moral code, too. I'm trying to get you to be consistent with what your own moral code likely stipulates as well.

You literally cannot have a moral code and believe that morality is subjective at the same time

You're an idiot. That's like saying that, because attractiveness is subjective, that one can't have standards for whom they find attractive.

Not the same guy, but
>one can't have standards for whom they find attractive
You can have standards for yourself, but it's retarded to apply those standards to everyone else and say there's something wrong with them for not having the same standards as you.

>You can have standards for yourself, but it's retarded to apply those standards to everyone else and say there's something wrong with them for not having the same standards as you.
Fair enough. I guess morality is different n my mind, in that there needs to be general consensus on certain moral issues so that a society can function. Total anarchism, like totalitarianism, doesn't produce good results. So, though morality is subjective, some sort of virtually agreed-upon moral code is important for human well-being (which most people instinctively want).

You're the idiot here, actually. Morality is, by definition, a TRANSCENDANT set of values. Due to its transcendent nature, the values imposed by any particular moral code must be applied univetsally, thus it is OBJECTIVE. Evidence of thus can be seen by how you're attempting to hold me accountable to your moral code, which you would not be doing unless you believed in objective morality..
>beauty standards are just like moral standards
Lmao what
Also there is no such thing as a subjective standard. A standard is something you apply to others and is thus not subjective

Yeah, that was the one I was doubting. I met many girls without a father figure and most had amazing moms that raised them well, most are actually reserved and polite girls who use their own experience to try and look for a good man who will give their kids the fatherly role they didn't have, instead of thinking "all men are trash waah". Basically what I mean is that ironically they tend to be the more family oriented ones and less (or not at all to begin with) slutty, but then again this is anecdotic.

>Morality is, by definition, a TRANSCENDANT set of values.
Actually, it's "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior".
This invalidates the rest of your paragraph, so I'll skip to the end of your reply.
>Also there is no such thing as a subjective standard. A standard is something you apply to others and is thus not subjective
The number one definition of standard is "a level of quality or attainment". Quality is subjective. Also, you can apply things to others and they can still be subjective - for example, the label "ugly".

TL;DR: You have the intellect of a bimbo.

>Who's he?
A fucking retard by the looks of this thread.

Attached: Not an anime girl but definetly smug.jpg (750x828, 69K)

That doesn't answer my fucking question

>principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong
Yes, distinctions which are made by referring a perceived set of objective values, idiot, you failing to grasp what morality is and posting the dictionary.com definition only reinforces my original point.
>quality is subjective
Except it's not, an object's quality is dictates by your own internal set of values which you believe to be objective. The fact that you don't enforce your standards on others just means you're either a brained that can't grasp the implications of your own morality, or you're just a pussy that's too afraid to apply it.
tl;dr you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. If you want to learn about the nature and implications of the concept of morality you should probably refer to a source more exhaustive then the dictionary definition you brainlet roastie.

Ignore the grammar/spelling, I'm a filthy phoneposter

Has tits and a dick.

>>he
>ree
Cringed hard

>distinctions which are made by referring a perceived set of objective values
You pulled that out of your ass.
>you failing to grasp what morality is
Oh, the irony of YOU accusing ME of not knowing what I'm talking about.
>an object's quality is dictates by your own internal set of values which you believe to be objective
No
>The fact that you don't enforce your standards on others just means you're either a brained that can't grasp the implications of your own morality, or you're just a pussy that's too afraid to apply it.
I'm not sure if you're the same person from before, but weren't you JUST blamng me for applying my morality to others simply because I conceded that it's not objective?
>If you want to learn about the nature and implications of the concept of morality you should probably refer to a source more exhaustive then the dictionary definition you brainlet roastie.
Actually, maybe you should get your understanding of morality from an non-religious source since your head is so far up your own ass that you think that morality is, by definition, "TRANSCENDANT" (which you didn't even spell correctly, btw; it's transcendent).

no wonder you're so fucking stupid. go phone post somewhere else you underage faggot

So, do you prefer no tits and no dick, like a gynephilic pedo, or do you prefer either a dick or tits?

Red:
>likes dbz,naruto,or bleach
>main consumption of media is anime
>0 appreciation for art
>overly obsessed with maintaining masculinity
>poor hygiene
>unironically refers to himself or others using animal terminology (alpha,beta,ect.)
>arrogant
>conservative
Pink:
??? none really

>You pulled that out of your ass
If these distinctions aren't informed by an objective set of values, then what basis do you have for making those distinctions? None.

>No
Yes. When you call somebody "ugly" you're making a statement about the objective nature of that person's physical appearance.

>weren't you just blaming me for applying morality to others
That's my point, idiot. You, like all other lefties and enlightened centrists, think you believe in subjective morality while at the same time applying your own set of objective morals to everybody else while being too dumb to understand the contradiction inherent to your worldview.

>get your understanding of morality from a non-religious source
Morality doesn't exist unless it comes from a transcendent source, any other belief is just you trying to control my thoughts and behavior with spooks.

Red flags:
>vegan
>bpd
>talks too much and enthusiastically about what she did with friends (bonus if its getting high/drunk and nothing else)
>dreadlocks
>metalhead
>unconditionally supports israel/palestine
>hates anime
>only hobbies are npc tier women hobbies (fashion, tv, music, celebs)
Pink flag:
>minority

> vegan
> doesn't like people who are easily offended

ever look in a mirror?

>If these distinctions aren't informed by an objective set of values, then what basis do you have for making those distinctions? None.
This is also pulled out of your ass. Distinctions aren't always objective.
>Yes. When you call somebody "ugly" you're making a statement about the objective nature of that person's physical appearance.
No. Attractiveness s subjective. There's no "objectively" ugly. There is majority opinion, but majority opinion != fact.

>You, like all other lefties and enlightened centrists, think you believe in subjective morality while at the same time applying your own set of objective morals to everybody else while being too dumb to understand the contradiction inherent to your worldview.
What's wrong with applying non-objective criteria to others?

>Morality doesn't exist unless it comes from a transcendent source, any other belief is just you trying to control my thoughts and behavior with spooks.
Yet another thng pulled out of your ass. Morailty exists because it provided an evolutionary benefit. Due to this, most people want well-being for humans in general, and many extend that to nonhuman animals as well.

>minority as a pink flag
Literally everyone is in a minority group. For an example, every religious orientation has a minority of the world's population. So, whether someone is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, etc., (s)he is in the minority.
You've got to be more clear about what turns you off, buddy.

Stereotype much?

RED:
>feminazi hair
>doesn't have two X chromosomes
>defines herself by some leftist "ism" cause
>high notch count
>watches porn
>owns a vibrator or dildo
>obese
>had an abortion
>tangibly stupid
>basic bitch
>black ex
>ever fucked a black guy
>has some fucked-up fetish like scat
>listens to music I can't stand
>hard drug addict (i.e. coke, meth, opiates, alcohol, etc.)
>is a cunt to her friends or family
>is a cunt to animals
>her mom aged badly
>sexual abuse/assault survivor
>more neurotic than I am
>drinks daily
>thinks it's okay to slap people
>has an online dating profile
>has a bunch of dudes ogling her on social media
>has ever been a sex worker
>voice is annoying
>music festival whore
>convinced she has to be happy all the time
>whistler
>finger-tapper
>foot-kicker
>plays with her hair

PINK:
>smoker (not gonna be a hypocrite here, but everybody knows we're trash)
>is vaguely liberal (most girls are)
>went to college (I know what you did. I was there.)
>watches television or netflix/hulu/whatever

Attached: 1537573343905.jpg (591x583, 64K)

Oh, I almost forgot:
RED:
>watches porn

Red flags:
>Is stupid
>Isn't emotionally supportive
>Victim mentality
>Gets angered easily, gets violent or screams when angry
>Isn't strictly monogamous
>Has an STD of any kind (beside HSV1, I suppose)
>Doesn't make me laugh
>Politically correct, or otherwise incapable of having a strong opinion
>No sense of humour
>Writes like shit
>Doesn't care about having a family

Pink flag
>Plays a lot of vidya and/or is a weeb
>Dramatic
>Likes going outside a bunch
>Cares a lot about what strangers think of him
>Uses social media a lot
>"My exes were ALL bitches"
>Treats service people poorly
>Likes me

No, you didn't forget it.
Now you listed it twice and it's making you look dumb.

>Has an STD of any kind (beside HSV1, I suppose)
>Isn't strictly monogamous
>Treats service people poorly
You know what? You make good points, and I'm kinda shocked I forgot the STD one. Those are going on the list, too.

Attached: 1534771076555.jpg (495x507, 37K)

>Cares a lot about what strangers think of him
>of him

Tranny detected.

>This is also pulled out of your ass
Jesus Christ, can you please start using your brain? Every 'moral' statement and action you take is based on a value judgement. Example: The statement that "Genocide is bad" is informed by objective value. The value that informs the above statement would be "Human life has value". Because you believe that human life has value, you will make the distinction that genocide is bad.
This process occurs for every single value (read: moral. They are the same thing) judgement you make, whether it be your judgement on the moral nature of abortion or whether or not you should cheat on your diet, all of these distinctions are informed by your set of values.
If you can't tell, I'm trying really hard to dumb this down for you.

>attractiveness is subjective
Not to you, it isn't. If it was truly subjective, you would be able to understand that "attractive" and "ugly" are value judgements. And, because you don't believe in objective values, you would have no reason to call somebody "ugly" and thus make an objective distinction. Once again, I'm really trying to dumb this down for you.

>what's wrong with applying non-objective criteria to others?
Nothing is "wrong" with it, if you truly believed your criteria was subjective then you would not see a need to apply it to others. I do not tell you how to handle your finances, because I don't see the need to make sure you're spending responsibly. Like me, you are not willing to apply your subjective values (this is an oxymoron btw) to others when it relates to finances, but you're more than willing to do so when it relates to their attractiveness/whatever because you foolishly believe there's a difference.

>Morality exists because it provided an evolutionary benefit
"Morality" as you perceive it did not exist 2,000 years ago. The things that provided an 'evolutionary benefit' were language, writing, and social organization, not morality.

I was gonna say something snarky back, but I'm honestly just gonna take a moment and consider the implications of the fact that this post actually managed to piss me off without even being wrong objectively.

Attached: 1527935528044.png (283x289, 142K)

I'm very set on not getting super AIDS. It's a good standard to have.

I'm a girl, with a vagina, two X chromosomes and all.

Its a pink flag so didnt care to get too deep into it
But ok
>blacks, most aren't very attractive and are very hard to approach
>arab origins (arabs, mizrahi jews), most are dumb as nails and have a disgusting behaviour in my country
>asians, everyone are philipino illegals in my country and are ugly as hell
Thats basically all the minorities in my country i have a problem with

you are retarded and so is your list.

This isn't Tumblr, leave

Red flags:
>Is hitting tumblr on steroids levels of SJW, (I don't mind a feminist, but there's a point where I draw the line)
>Does drugs and isn't willing to quit
>Is unattractive (this shouldn't even be considered a red flag, it's just a given)
>Sells nude photos of herself online
>Says anything about wanting a 'sexually open relationship'
>Is transgender
>Is too pushy with their own beliefs
>Anything universally recognised as a red flag (in other words, is a crazy and manipulative bitch)

Pink flags:
>Is vegan or vegetarian
>Considers herself some sort of tumblr gender such as 'demisexual' or whatever the kids are raving about these days
>Talks about ex partners in a weird way
>has a life threatening terminal illness
>Talks poorly about others a bit too often

>Talks poorly about others a bit too often
Oh, this is a good one to have.
In general, people who talk behind people's back a lot. That should go on my list.

It's a pink flag cause I think some people have understandable reasons for doing so, but I don't want to be in a relationship with a mean person.

Red flags:
>exists

Pink flags:
>none

>has a life threatening terminal illness
I'm honestly shocked that isn't in the red list. Not trying to be a dick, but I wouldn't put anything valuable of mine on a sinking ship.

Then use your own list when looking for a mate instead. The idiosyncrasies that piss me off aren't gonna be the same as the ones that piss you off.

Get some standards.

Attached: 1540705645142.png (500x652, 521K)

Red flags:
>Leftist
>College educated
>Career driven
>Above 25 years old
>Not white (white to me means "descended from a germanic people".)
>Has had sex or dated a non white.
>Deeply religious
>likes pop culture
>uses lots of social media
>no sense of humor

Pink flags:
>taller than 5'6"
>has peircings and/or tattoos(including brands
>likes "male hobbies".
>short hair(pixie cut length)
>doesn't take care of basic hygiene.
>extroverted
>huge slut in the past
>takes lots of medication
>shows addictive behaviors.

In reality you only need one red flag:
>is a breathing human female

Would you be okay with a breathing nonhuman female? What about a breathing human male? Are you gay? What about a human female whose respiration has ceased?
Would you date a dead male orangutan? How would that even work?

In response to the terminal illness one (I made the list), if the girl is dreamy but only has a year to live, I'm going to make sure it's her best year ever. Plus, having a partner break up with you and then continue to get with someone else and taunt you with their existence hurts (projecting...), at least if your partner died, you know that the relationship was not ended because of your own mistakes, and perhaps if the relationship was long enough before the death of the partner - and if you are very committed - you might continue to be in a relationship with that person, despite their death.

I hope you're just a troll and not actually this dense.
>The statement that "Genocide is bad" is informed by objective value. The value that informs the above statement would be "Human life has value".
THOSE ARE BOTH SUBJECTIVE STATEMENTS. There is no objective basis for any moral statemtent.
>This process occurs for every single value (read: moral. They are the same thing) judgement you make, whether it be your judgement on the moral nature of abortion or whether or not you should cheat on your diet, all of these distinctions are informed by your set of values.
Yes: and I've admitted this whole time that my values are subjective.
>If you can't tell, I'm trying really hard to dumb this down for you.
Goddamn. You've managed to be a condescending idiot. Heartbreaking.
>If it was truly subjective, you would be able to understand that "attractive" and "ugly" are value judgements.
I do understand that. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE COMPARISON, you fucking MORON.
>And, because you don't believe in objective values, you would have no reason to call somebody "ugly" and thus make an objective distinction.
I never claimed to make an objective distinction. That was the point I was making to begin with.
>Once again, I'm really trying to dumb this down for you.
Ironic, eh?
>Nothing is "wrong" with it, if you truly believed your criteria was subjective then you would not see a need to apply it to others.
Wrong again. I apply my attractiveness standards to others while know that they aren't objective.
>Like me, you are not willing to apply your subjective values (this is an oxymoron btw) to others when it relates to finances, but you're more than willing to do so when it relates to their attractiveness/whatever because you foolishly believe there's a difference.
Actually, plenty of people do judge others subjectively based on their finances. That's why you can get in legal trouble for not paying your taxes/debts.

(1/2)

I was gonna make a response about how you should like short haired girls because they're the best, but then I realised that since there aren't too many short haired girls around I really need the least competition for them as possible.

(2/2)
>"Morality" as you perceive it did not exist 2,000 years ago. The things that provided an 'evolutionary benefit' were language, writing, and social organization, not morality.
Yes, morality was DIFFERENT 2000 years ago, but it did still EXIST. The evolutionary benefit was there. Humans rely heavily on group cooperation, and morality facilitated that. Ask an actual decent biologist.

Short-haired girls are objectively the cutest, but unfortunately too many girls with pixie or boycut hair are either gay (no issue with that, just can't fuck 'em) or insufferable cunts (huge issue with that.)
It's true, though. Nothing frames a cute face quite like short hair on a girl.

You know what, I agree with you mostly. I feel my love of short haired girls is a curse for me, many are lesbian, sad world.

Asking the real questions, there, bud. We need people like you to be journalists.

Red flags:
>Bossy
>Fat
>Commie/Socialist
>Tranny
>Femboy (you all are fags)
>Diehard vegan
>Pushy with her beliefs
>Active/popular on Instagram or Twitter
>Body count over 3 (Virgin here)
>Any hookups
>Any threesomes/orgies
>Way higher in social/economic status than me
>ANY tattoos/piercings (besides earrings; and no fucking hoops)
>Footwear consists only of sandals/heels (fucking hate open-toed shoes)
>Long nails (think claws)
>Painted nails (hate nail polish)
>Unironic 3rd wave feminist
>Only follows pop culture (vapid)
>Easily offended/Too critical (2 sides of the same coin
>Wears provocative clothing regularly (slutty)

Pink flags:
>Body count 3 or less
>Doesn't like/hates Pokemon (might be a red flag depending on how pushy she is about it, as I love Pokemon)
>Plays Pokemon GO and enjoys it (fucking hate GO, Emerald/Platinum masterrace)
>Not working towards a carreer at the moment (as long as she knows what she wants to do, it's largely ok unless it's some bullshit like music or art)
>Doesn't like anime
>Likes the beach/'traveling' and/or 'adventure'

There are probably more, but this is extensive enough.

Red flags
>too far from my own age
>non-virgin/has engaged in sexual acts with another person before (bonus points if she's fucked black guys, divorced, single mother, etc.)
>also, has used a dildo/owns sex toys
>is not Christian
>falls at any point on the left side of the political spectrum
>is against guns and gun ownership
>supports Jews and the rich
>obese
>not white
>is too short
>is a bully/bitch/otherwise mean or a bad person
>is vegan
>hates her race
>supports abortion, divorce, and premarital sex
>supports fag agenda
>abuses animals
>is jealous
>hair dyed differently from her natural color/uses makeup
>tattoos/piercings
>looks like a laboratory abomination/fallout ghoul (scars or a few burns are perfectly fine, not even a pink flag)
Pink flags
>long hair
>Protestant or Orthodox (latter is preferable over the former)
>is vegetarian
>has tongue kissed
>is unattractive
>is very submissive
>is easily offended
>authoritarian
>neutral about guns/merely tolerates them (still a pretty big hurdle, you'd have to really impress me)
>is unintelligent
>our senses of humor don't mesh well/doesn't understand my humor
I think that covers all of it. I may have forgotten a few
And having listed all that, I've pretty much given up. There's nobody like that in the world, not even one that passes the red flags.

Attached: image.jpg (1024x768, 911K)

>if you are very committed - you might continue to be in a relationship with that person, despite their death.
Are you a necro (no judgment) or are you just talking about being with your late partner in a fantasy world?

>tfw have no red flag
>but fit most of the pink flags

S A D

I don't know about you, but if my partner died I wouldn't be back on the single train straight away; think about old people that carry a photo of their deceased spouse and tell people that is their husband/wife.

>those are both subjective statements
that
is
my
point
An actual moral subjectivist is trying to explain to you why you're retarded, and all you're doing is justifying your moral objectivism by appealing to secularism and evolution of all fucking things

>i apply my standards to others while still believing they're subjective
Standards stop being subjective as soon as you apply them to others bud, because you're expecting other people to adhere to your values and play by your rules.

>morality was different 2,000 years ago
In general, yes, but the moral code you adhere to individually did not exist, which is why there is no evolutionary benefit from it.
>morality facilitated group cooperation
You mean threat of force and collective interests (i.e. survival), right?

For a self-proclaimed moral subjectivist, you are the most spooked person I've ever seen

This all the way. I always think of myself as only being capable of devotion to one woman only, and that when she passes, I won't remarry. Maybe I'll get someone to help around the house or something, but that would be purely business/roommate stuff, nothing sexual or romantic in it.
Not that I'm ever going to have the chance.

If you don't fit any red flags, that's at least enough to be considered in my book. I posted . If you wanna talk, I'll drop a contact.

>Footwear consists only of sandals/heels (fucking hate open-toed shoes)
>Painted nails (hate nail polish)

Mate those are probably the two most george costanza-esque red flags I've ever heard

It's absolutely reasonable, feet are gross.

You red flag vegans but ALSO red flag animal abusers. That covers nearly 100% of people, as almost all nonvegans literally pay for killing or enslaving innocent animals.

Idk man, it just irritates me and puts me off from interaction. Hell, I can't even watch porn where the woman has nail polish. I have to find a new vid or not fap.
Feet are disgusting and it's a disgusting fetish; I will never sexualize feet.

I'm not really looking, I'm sorry. I'm just going through the lists because I can't sleep.
Hope you find the sandal-less girl of your dreams.

I don't have a foot fetish, but getting intimate with a woman typically means you appreciate all parts of their body, not to say you're going to start sucking on a girls toes, but when you're having an intimate moment with someone you typically look at any part of their body and like it, because it's part of that person.

>An actual moral subjectivist is trying to explain to you why you're retarded, and all you're doing is justifying your moral objectivism by appealing to secularism and evolution of all fucking things
No true scotsman fallacy. There's nothing that I've said that even hints at me being a moral objectivist.
>all you're doing is justifying your moral objectivism by appealing to secularism and evolution of all fucking things
Dude, I'm no Sam Harris. I acknowledge that morality isn't objective.
>Standards stop being subjective as soon as you apply them to others bud
Yet another thing you've made up!
>you're expecting other people to adhere to your values and play by your rules
What's wrong with that?
>In general, yes, but the moral code you adhere to individually did not exist, which is why there is no evolutionary benefit from it.
Perhaps humans would've been even more successful if we all adhered to my code this whole time. There's no way to know.
>You mean threat of force and collective interests (i.e. survival), right?
Yes.
>For a self-proclaimed moral subjectivist, you are the most spooked person I've ever seen
You keep using this word, spooked; I don't think it means what you think it means.