Yeah this is really complicated shit to figure out. I mean if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it fucks like a duck, who fucking knows? Could be anything. On one hand we have the textbook example of slavery, but on the other hand maybe hauling giant fuck-off blocks feeds the people, the little-known great and ancient rock-eating people of Egypt.
Also remember, it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve. Please ignore that if 10 people is enough to stop starvation, the group of 100 can get off their own asses and stop their starvation 10 times over all by themselves.
Look at his reply to me on another thread after mentioning I was tapping this shit out on a Samsung. "Oh it's fine! Nobody is perfect"
Yet, apparently you are not allowed to criticize slavery in lieu of your hypocritical use of some...kind...of...modern luxuries somewhere, like having shoes. Not allowed. In fact, extrapolating his weird standards regarding you, no one should ever criticize anything ever.
Drunk drivers...not wrong because you could hit someone with your car, so your criticism makes you a hypocrite? Also 'adhom' even though he can call you horrific names, and, apparently, being gale from hunger games who banged jlaw and got dumped discredits your opinion in some round about relevant way? But that's definitely not an ad hominem...
Fuckin' shitduz. If it makes you feel any better, I used to do 'this' with him and now he's weirdly respectful towards me. I have no idea why.
I agree with SW. Come at me shitduz. I won't even answer coz I'm lazy as fuck. But, seriously, shitduz, lloyd is a fucking trash heap though. Don't defend him. He would legit whip black people with a switch if it was socially acceptable.
My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly for the way the world works, which was Lloyd's position. S.W's position is that we can judge people as evil in the past for not having our modern understanding of humanity when it comes to slave labour but that if people in the future also do better than we do now that it would be entirely unreasonable for them to judge us the same way we judge those of the past. If you want to make that a case of simply me saying, "You can't criticize slavery!" then that's on you.
As for the drunk drivers thing, I don't think you're representing that argument too well. The topic we were discussing was in regards to wearing a mask and if someone is warranted vilifying someone for not lessening the risk of putting someone in harms way even if those people sacrifice more to ensure the likelihood of people being harmed is lessened. A lot of my arguments, like that one, has more to do with me holding people to their own standard beyond popular trends, and not mine which is exactly what I done with S.W here. If you don't want to be held to their own standards then stop vilifying others for not living up to your standards, essentially.
As for this being an adhom, he directed it to this. I didn't "ad hom" into this, infact you know fair well I'll try to respond to every single thing in a comment. I sure as shit did mention the cringey shit with less than a line of text, to suggest I used that subject to distract from the initial arguments is just wrong, it didn't replace the topic it was added to it barely. He then made his responses more about this smaller issue and that smaller issue got talked mostly about as he dropped the rest and that's how we're here. Don't put that shit on me, dude.
You can agree with S.W if you want, doesn't change anything. I don't know Lloyd, he might be a shitbrick and I even said as much earlier in this conversation but I view SW to be a shithead too and maybe you've just not seen it or maybe the bleeding heart preachy shit appeals to you but I don't trust that dude for a second and the more I've communicated with him the more it's been shown as to why I shouldn't.
All I know is that I actually asked Lloyd and he said he is completely against slavery and then I look to S.W to see how he responds to that and he just says, "Nuh-huh! He said slavery was good!" and then I see Lloyd claim that slavery was good when it was necessary for others to survive and then I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted.
Listen, I'll be civil here & I apologize for being rude. Obviously the DM's thing rubbed me the the wrong way, but I don't really wish to rip on you.
I understand that it appears nonsensicle to profer a long opinion piece while also stating that I don't care. The reason I say that, to be clear, is because our disagreements are an abstraction. I remember getting INTO in with you about ray rice KO punching the living shit out of his gf. Basically, the disagreement was surrounding whether it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman if she strikes him first. Looking at the issue now, I can say with confidence, that while i still disagree with you, I don't feel the need to change your mind. Why? Because I've interacted with you enough to know that you aren't going to go home and sucker punch your gf in the throat. So while I may disagree with your opinion, it merely exists as a theoretical viewpoint, not something with actual consequences. So I don't NEED to change your mind. It is what it is. That's how I feel about most shit on here, and why I don't generally engage in the gigantic debates.
The reason I commented on this thread was because I found it funny exactly how much your negative opinion of this user is muddying your viewpoint.
Forgetting for a moment that lloyd is a giant fucking bag of dicks, and just reading what he said in a neutral tone...
The fuck off vanity monuments? When lloyd starts talking about hauling stone slabs through the desert, to me it is pretty fucking evident that he is referencing the pyramids. It was absolutely my first thought, before reading anything SW said. To me it was patently obvious.
Could he technically be referencing some other stones in some other desert? Sure, but come on. It's purposefully obtuse to point out that without context we know not of what he speaks. So while you are TECHNICALLY correct that there is an inference taken from his comment that could be completely erroneous, it's fucking not lol. I know you know he's talking about the pyramids. I know. We all fucking know. It's purposely dense to imply otherwise, and the reason it was harped on is because it is a patently ridiculous example of slavery being a justifiable, historical necessity. Namely, because the pyramids were not a fucking necessity at all.
The crux of this argument, fuck off vanity monuments aside, is that SW thinks lloyd is a fucking cock for thinking slavery is "OK" sometimes, you know, a necessary evil based on some abstract historical context. SW seems to think that slavery can not be justified, under any circumstance and saying that it cam be makes lloyd a fuckhole. This, I agree with. That opinion is illogical to you because it is an absolute, devoid of context, what you consider to be a modern moral choice that's being retroactively applied to a different time and lifestyle and set of cultural norms?
It is illogical. Nothing exists in a vacuum, but if you do not grant anyone the ability to hold the past accountable to our adjusted moral standards, then nothing ever done can be considered wrong. You do understand that? Not the halocaust. Not Chernobyl. Not the holodomer.
Now, forgetting that slavery is most certainly not a thing of the past. There are as many slaves and human trafficking victims today as there were during the trans Atlantic slave trade, I don't understand why this is a cross you chose to die on. I don't even get the drift that you, personally, think slavery is "ok."
I think you specifically take issue with this because you find ultra liberal people to be PREFORMATIVE. You use words like "virtue signalling" and "preachy" quite a bit to describe people who hold views like "slavery is not fucking ok."
I understand where that comes from, and there certainly are people that behave that way, but I strongly suspect it is because you don't actually believe this: "My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly."
The thing is, you do. You judge people who hold social justice esque viewpoints accountable to a comical degree. As soon as you start asking questions, grilling people about ethically sourcing everything they own, it become obvious that you want to expose their hypocrisy, and the fact that they do not live up to their own moral standards.
Let me spoil that for you. We are all hypocrites. We all fail. We all do unethical things. Every single person. That's because we are human, and unless we want to go live in a fucking yurt in the woods and grow our own vegetables, living in the modern world means you will fuck up and do immoral things.
What that doesn't mean is that all morality is therefore void, and pointless, and a waste. Because if you extrapolate that, then it makes it pointless to believe in anything.
I don't believe people should light cats on fire. I think it's wrong and cruel. I ate chicken last night. That chicken's death was probably a hellscape. That makes me a hypocrite. But should that mean I don't have the moral authority to tell people not to light cats on fire? No...that's fucking ridiculous. If that's the standard to which you hold people, then it abdicates everyone of the right to have any opinions about morality, and that's dangerous.
So yes, I agree with SW
No I don't think he's doing some fake virtue signaling bullshit I'm a fake good guy show by saying slavery is wrong
It is fucking wrong hahahaha. It's such a simple concept. Say it with me. Enslaving other human beings is a real dick move.
And this gf shit. I'm not gonna mention anything specific because he obviously told you he did not want it on the site, and yet you posted about it like 30 times...wtf. it obviously is a personal attack. I never saw the original comments, but I think you viewed him saying he had a hot gf as some type of humble brag? Well he should think he had a hot fucking gf. She was his fucking GF FFS.. I don't see how that should be embarrasing or whatever, but you're obviously using the situation to mock him. It is completely irrelevant to your disagreement with him, and it should absolutely not be harped on if you're gonna accuse other people of AD HOM. you know that too. Don't be obtuse.
You really just want to disagree with this specific user I think and rake him over the coals, which is fine. You're entitled to that opinion, but don't allow it to cloud the truth that LLOYD FUCKING ASHER IS A COCK FACE who is wrong.
Hmm. You know, I actually hadn't thought of it like that. I didn't think it could be taken as a humblebrag because the general consensus of the post was that she was average and I, myself, was saying I perhaps unfairly had a hard time seeing her as even average after coming to think of someone who looked like her as a bad person (although I absolutely did think that person was beautiful while in love, which I said I had, but I always do that and specified that).
It just seemed _especially_ relevant to mention. Like with any post, if something in my life is relevant to it, I might comment about it provided it doesn't potentially break anonymity, and I almost did. I don't even reveal what state of the US I came from outside of messages. I wouldn't have even said the US but I ended up saying enough to make it obvious in the past. This actually isn't even the first comment I've deleted because of crossing the line. I've come pretty close when mentioning various jobs, etc., and begrudgingly decided to delete them before they were even seen (to my knowledge).
You might be onto something and it triggered some jealousy, but I'm actually pretty sure ItDuz had said he thought she was average before I even commented. I really don't think he was jealous or thought I was humblebragging all the same given the nature of the consensus on the post. For a while I thought he just wanted to make sure it was seen to fuck me over, but that's not it either.
I've come to the conclusion that he just honestly felt I gave a fuck about his opinion and that saying things like "when I'm in love I see my girlfriends as the best there is" embarrassed me, which it clearly doesn't as I'm doubling down right now. I own that shit. Since he can't win a debate with me for shit (and it's absolutely about "winning" for him), he had taken me deleting that as a weird consolation prize and didn't cope well with realizing I'm fine with everything in the post besides the specific details that could fuck me over.
So in his defense, I no longer think it's really a personal _attack_. It's just more denial like with the stone blocks because it had really meant the world to his little heart. Just like it's not hard at all to see why I did what I did, it's not hard at all to see what the blocks were for, but he would have to say he was wrong to admit that.
I absolutely agree he loathes me, it's abundantly obvious, but I also think it's not about me specifically. He just hates being proven wrong. Anyone could be doing what I'm doing instead of me and he would feel the same. It's not hard to out obvious denial which has been the heart of every debate we've ever had. They're the easiest kind of debate there is for the one not denying obvious facts.
It started with his denial of Trump's role in the Capitol riots. It's always about denial. I don't think we've even once debated something that wasn't a matter of denial on his part. It doesn't make me or anyone else particular impressive for pointing out obvious denial.
He outs his insecurities when he uses accusations like "performative" because it's actually what he's low-key doing. While we're fairly anonymous on here there's still a bit of identity attached to our names. If every comment was totally anonymous, he wouldn't even be pretending to believe the blocks were about something else or that I have a problem with him of all people feeling anything is cringe when he knows the blocks were for the pyramids and he knows I'm not ashamed of my emotions, certainly not regarding a fucking social conservative of all people.
It's _usually_ about him as ItDuz specifically, his identity here, not being proven wrong. He's low-key narcissistic as fuck which is why it's so funny to mirror and amplify the same to him because no one hates external narcissism like a narcissist and it makes their skin crawl like nothing else. I've hinted that I do this to him for fun but he completely missed it. Guess the cat's out if the bag now.
Still, we're, myself included, overlooking how this really started in this _particular_ instance. It's not about hatred of me or even of anyone else who might take the time to call him out on his very easily called-out shit. For once it's not even about his profound aversion to being proven wrong. The answer is actually the simplest one of all, right at the root of everything:
He's simply protecting Lloyd regardless of hating me or protecting his ego. He feels he has to because he knows damn well it's usually always him, Lloyd, and WeirdGuyFromTheSouth spewing their viewpoints. When one of them suddenly says "slavery was okay" this is a massive fucking problem and he started acting like a defense lawyer for a drunken client at best and a murderer's mother at worst. He was long before I called him on it. The format was like this.
LloydAsher: Horrible shit
ItDuz: But what you really mean is this right?
LA: Horrible shit
ID: Okay, I'm going to handfeed you an alibi. Please fucking take it.
LA: Horrible shit
ID: But you really mean... like... dude, come on...
Then I called it out. Just imagine that standard he holds me to and imagine the opposite. It's like the saying about what Trumpers say about anything Trump says: He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it like that, and if he meant it like that, others have said worse.
ID: Okay, I'm going to handfeed you an alibi. Please fucking take it.
LA: Horrible shit
ID: But you really mean... like... dude, come on..."
This fucking made me laugh so fucking hard. Omg.
He explained his opinion of the matter of your ex (which for some reason IS RELEVANT) in more detail. I'm not sure if you can see his reply to me since I believe he's blocked you.
But, apparently a humbrag is not what made this interaction...which I wasn't even here for...SO GODDAMN FUCKING EGREGIOUS that it needs to be brought up over and over again, while we keep repeating the celebrity's name OVER and OVER again so anyone who reads it KNOWS exactly what is being discussed...is this
Saying you think the woman you are dating is the most beautiful person in the world to you is apparently incredibly disingenuous. It's performative. And big lie city.
You're supposed to say she's a D minus, at best. So you should be really embarrassed to be attracted to her. CRINGE CITY.
My fiance would never say such disgusting things to me. When I ask him if he likes my dress, he always says "SHUT THE FUCK UP, STUPID DANNY DEVITO WHORE. DON'T MAKE ME GET THE PHONEBOOK" like a normal person. None of this mincing about, telling people they're pretty. That's some straight up pussy bullshit.
Then...because you were so ashamed when you realized how disgusting and SUPER GAY it is to think your own girlfriend is hot, then you got embarrassed, deleted your post and THEN you crafted an entire fake soap opera where you lied and said she uses the site. Because that is such an unbelievable story...you know, to actually tell your SO what you are doing tapping away on the phone & tell them what site you were on. My fiance never reads this site (hey brett, YOU HIDEOUS D MINUS CUNTFACE ;)
So in short, you should never admit to being attracted to the people you date. Gross. And they also definitely don't have internet access...nobody does.
AND THE FUCKING BLOCKS. Why!? Why were the fucking blocks even a thing? Everyone knows what the motherfucking blocks are for. Why is the fucking Pharoah moving motherfucking blocks, goddamnit? We. All. Know. Why. The blocks being a subject of debate is ABSURD.
1.
It's fine if you want to rip on me. Tbh the original conversation has been pivoted away so much that I'm surprised I'm still even responding even after knowing I can't actually expect the original conversation to go back on track. If I'm short here it's just to save space and time, I'm not being sassy if I say I agree with you or accept what you say as fair.
2.
- Makes sense.
3.
- That may be fair but I actually approached him in good faith to this argument and he initiated the condescending and insulting comments. I even tried to help him on a point to bring them both on the same page to see where they could actually disagree genuinely.
- He is a douchebag in my eyes. Did you read his comments where he has like 3 lines of relevant response and then 6 lines of comments referring to himself as shit like a giant black widow spinning it's webs like he's auditioning to play some live action Naruto villain type shit and then goes into gaslighting using subjects of addictions just to shame someone and making that their main go-to? I won't pretend to know you personally due to this being online and all but no way would you of not seen that as cringy bullshit from an egomaniac.
4.
- Lloyd might of made that analogy, I even claimed that might of been the case to S.W when I wasn't arguing with him. That said, Lloyd also made other comments that would imply that it's entirely possible for his analogy to be a misguided one that doesn't actually represent his views. Noticing this I inform S.W of this and he just passes it off as not even existing so I do the leg work and once I get down to it, despite S.W saying the opposite, Lloyd in far more depth explains that he does not believe slavery is justified nor moral, albeit for multiple and sometimes separate reasons. I've said this time and time to S.W and all I get in response is, "But he said he wants them to build monuments! That's what he said!" and I have to keep coming back to the fact that it isn't the only thing Lloyd said, infact it's a very small portion of what he said.
5.
- I haven't thought on the topic of if it's more moral to enslave a few for the many or to let the many die for the freedom of the few, I wanted to have that conversation to explore it but now I can't because it turned out the people I assumed were looking to have that conversation, or atleast one of them, were only doing it to knock the other and not actually discuss the topic.
- I mean if I really wanted to be an asshole I could do the same type of thing that's been done to me and Lloyd here and just throw out a, "Wow, wait...You know prisoners actually fall under the definition of slave? Wait, you think rapists should be able to go free? Why do you want women to be raped? Your principles aren't realistic! Make a perfect scenario where prisoners go free without hurting anyone otherwise you support slavery!" But it's gross to do that shit and I can fill in the blanks myself, and I just feel that courtesy is one sided.
6.
- Holding the past accountable is fine so long as we do it with the understanding that not every wrong doing was with the knowledge of it being wrong-doing and served a purpose, but then again I'm sure Hitler thought the same with your holocaust example, but then again we can't paint all things we learned from as having no reasoning behind them while other ones, like the holocaust, clearly have nothing to consider. It's a more complicated topic than I think we should get into here.
- That said, how would this work alongside the fact S.W stated that while we can judge the past that the future can't judge us or that it wouldn't be reasonable for them to do so even if they learn from our mistakes?
7.
- Ofcourse I don't think slavery is ok but neither did Lloyd when I asked him and people are still saying he thinks it's ok. I just wanted to join a discussion about using slavery to meet necessary bigger picture ends and bounce some ideas but he wouldn't do that though wouldn't stop running his mouth.
8.
- Nah. For example I don't think you're a virtue signaller as far as I'm aware of but when he is going the "Slavery is not ok, bigot!" spiel and then the dude he's saying that to is like, "Yeah...I know?" and he just repeats, "BUT SLAVERY IS NOT OK, BIGOT!" then yeah, that's performative because he knows there's a disconnect there but he also knows he can use Lloyd as a stepping stone to stand above everyone else and say, "I DISAGREE WITH SLAVERY!" and the crowd throws cookies over such a brave sentiment that nobody disagreed with him on. Then there was the Jennifer.L post. Holy fuck, that was just filled with egoism but the story he spun after it made it even worse. He was too beyond simply admitting something as mundane as being cringy and made this big story arch to avoid it. Then ofcourse there's the outright delusions of grandeur that I mentioned above, fuckin' spider manning it up.
9.
- Yes, I like to expose when people don't live up to their own standards when they're trying to force others to live up to them or shame others for not living up to them. Nobody is perfect but that doesn't mean I won't take issue with people pretending they are perfect as they attack someone else for not being perfect.
10.
- Ok, I'll be clear here, dude. I barely even referenced it with less than a line, a snippet with barely any relevant information this "ex" could use and he took that as a way to turn the vast majority of his response into making the subject about that half a line of text. I'm sorry but at that point I refuse to accept this representation that I turned the talk into it when it was him that blew the topic up.
- I'll also say this. I don't for a second believe the story of his ex potentially being on this site exists, I think it was a made up story to cover up his easily bruised ego, and if you were in my shoes watching this dude going, "Don't say nothing! She might be hearing! But anyway, here's my credit card number, date of birth, my first pet's name, and what I like to do on Saturday nights" then you'd think the same.
- Ohohoho, no, no. People have hot girlfriends and I don't why you'd assume that was what my issue with him was. The post was one big jerk-off. The dude made, I shit you not, like an eight paragraph post about how any girl he's with is automatically the prettiest woman alive because he looks at their character and because he loves them and adores them, and all that mushy cliche shit for eight paragraphs. I didn't even think such a thing would be possible and maybe there would be contexts for it but on a damn post about someone finding a celebrity pretty? I simple responded, "Jesus Chriiiiiist, dude" and he then tried to say that was me trying to warn him and be chummy with him claiming it to be positive exchange I was making with him because there was too much information an ex of his could use, even though he never once referenced some ex stalking him on this site or potentially being able to for me to warn him about. I was just so dumbfounded I responded, "I'te".
- It's shit like that which makes me think he's doing this performative shit.
11.
- Lloyd might be, I don't know. You know full well I've probably done the most on this site to demonstrate that I'm not looking for friendships.
This might be a jumbled mess but I can't be assed reading through it all before sending it like I usually do. If I've missed something you want answered lemme know. The numbers are mainly to help me out here. Lol.
"--he then tried to say that was me trying to warn him and be chummy with him--"
*Webs up and discards BS*
I already made it clear that I didn't think you were _trying_ to be positive. That's ridiculous. You hate me. I just said it ended up _being_ positive, which you hated because you wouldn't piss on me to put a fire out. I wouldn't have expected you to do anything less than act like a POS.
Look, I'm going to level with you since the cat's out of the bag and it was already pretty obvious to everyone else... I'm... I'm Spider-Man, ItDuz. I couldn't have my ex find out which user I am because she would have inevitably told you all that I'm Spider-Man. But I've decided this site might finally be the perfect medium for me to communicate with the world.
*Has a sip of egomaniac flavored Monster energy drink*
Look, dude. First of all, I definitely didn't forshadowingly comment "this is what I do" a few months ago on your comment saying you think it's amusing to detect negative perceptions that someone else has and amplify them to the point of absurdity. No. This is the point we're at now. I'm fucking Spider-Man. Drop comments and suggestions below for how I can better protect the city with my inhuman abilities.
Or wait. Here's another one. I'm like Dexter, you know, the serial killer who only kills serial killers. I'm that but with with narcissism. My father could tell something was wrong with me early on and trained me to be a good person, to only use my narcissistic powers to utterly infuriate thinly veiled narcissists on internet forums. Oh, how the beatings were long and brutal. He didn't even use the phonebook; he used encyclopedias. But it's thanks to him that I'm here today to... ugh... fuck it.
Listen, I'm not gonna respond to all of your points because, I agree, that this post has gotten incredibly off topic, and while i understand what you're saying, responding bit by bit will literally send me off onto 5 tangents about the importance of german history, my thoughts on prison reform, and a bunch of bullshit regarding the philosophy of moral relativism, and you don't want to read all that shit because it will ultimately just be a giant expansion on my same original points, which i still stand by.
I will say this, though. I understand that you find him to be disingenuous and performative, but I'm super surprised you're blocking him...ever since i started visiting this site, the only thing I've ever seen you use it for was to engage in debates with people you disagree with. It's literally what you do here, so I'm surprised you are noping out of the chance to engage with someone who is on the opposite side of the spectrum. Also, it's entertaining, so boo shitduz
And one other thing, this is an aside. You've made a few comments on this thread (which I now can't find because everything is scattered all over the place) expressing your opinion that this user has duped me, manipulated me, tricked me somehow into buying his bullshit? That's so fucking condescending. Don't fucking insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly capable of critical thought and perfectly able to form my own opinion independently. I don't agree with everything he says, and I would have no problem expressing that if I felt like it. I doubt he would either. But the idea that he pulled a big one over on me and somehow manipulated me into...what...agreeing with him about some shit on the internet. That's insulting, dude.
Beep beep. Pull over. This is a bullshit check. Step out of the car with your hands on your head.
"I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted."
That shit right there, that didn't happen. I told you I'd even rather society be generations behind if it meant there had been no slavery. That said, her reading comprehension actually works, so she already knows that. Just like how she doesn't pretend it's even remotely difficult to know what Lloyd was talking about with the 10-ton blocks.
The only thing I can even possibly think of that could be confusing you is me saying that I don't judge the people who were buying goods like bamboo who didn't even necessarily know where the fuck it came from. I judge the slave drivers absolutely and in all circumstances. I completely derailed your suggestion that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve by pointing out the obvious: The 100 is 10 times enough people to do the work themselves. Slavery is _never_ justifiable. Period. It's like rape It's not a good look to even suggest situations wherein it's justifiable or even merely less wrong.
"I don't trust that dude for a second."
Hahaha. I've never told you this, but it's always tickled me pink when you say, "I don't click links from you."
Not just links, links from _me_. None of that's as good as Clunk42 calling me evil though. It's as if just because I murder you social conservatives so hard disputationally you start fearing me in other ways, thinking like, "Man, this is a dangerous motherfucker."
I feel like a fucking oversized black widow spider crawling around a bunch of arachophobes. It's so fucking funny. I'm completely harmless to everything but your egos and the perceived validity of your positions.
Oh, yeah! I was probably abusive to my ex as well! It gets better and better. Which way? Still funny if you only think I'm emotionally abusive, given the way I chew you up and spit you out, but it will be even funnier if after all the verbal spankings you've had to endure you even imagine me beating the shit out of women because it's just impossible to imagine me as a nice guy after you've felt the heat.
You're right though. So abusive. That's probably why she's trying to get back with _me_ and I'm the one who has _her_ blocked for my own mental health. I'm really just afraid, as you suggested, that she'll sign up and tell everyone how abusive I am. Logic checks out.
The reason why I dont trust the link is because the first one you sent i looked up the site and the first result was virus related. Most likely theres nothing to worry about I dont take those risks.
Actually nevermind, the rest is just you wanking yourself off again. Get to the arguments plz.
Consider dual-booting and running a Linux OS for your browsing. You're virtually immune then. It could happen but you're about as likely to get a serious virus as be hit by a car.
For one, the virus actually has to be designed to infect Linux and no one wastes their time designing viruses for anything besides major OSs like Windows and Android. Additionally, Linux is just inherently more secure and won't give the malware root access anyway. There has never been a single widespread Linux virus.
Being careful is always good but it's one Hell of a safety net.
Yes it fuckin' did, dude. I asked you about the 10 and 100 group thing and you said that the ten can get up off their asses to do what was required to save the 100. Or was this the thing where you vaguely answer and leave enough of a wiggle room to backtrack only to display you never even answered the question to begin with?
Ok, I'll ask again. 10 people in one area, 100 in another. Skip all the realism bullshit as that's what a hypothetical is for. If 9 of those ten can save 100 people but don't want to put the work in so one out of that 10 finds a mean to force them into slavery to save that 100 people, what would your option be and is it a simple "But slavery bahd!" situation?
I didn't ask you if you'd prefer society be further behind, I was talking about lives. Again you're trying to hard to pivot by giving mucky answers that don't even relate.
You're still using the 10-ton block argument but I've already said to you time and time again that he went into further depth on the topic which demonstrated that the analogy doesn't work with his more in-depth review of the topic and therefor can be considered an analogy that doesn't represent his views. You think you can watch someone make a mistake, run away, and use that one mistake to represent them and you're still purposely avoiding this explanation and just repeating the same 10-ton line I already addressed.
I didn't suggest that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve, I simply made you aware that it was the core of the argument Lloyd was making. Yes, the 100 people is bigger but that's the point of hypotheticals, my dude, so that we can argue the rational behind something without the exact scape-goat shit you're doing there.
So I'll ask again. 10 people one side, 100 on the other. 100 can't survive without the work of the 10. Would you rather the 100 die or the 10 be enslaved to save the 10?
I'm not even looking for you to pick a side but simply to appreciate the complexity of it.
Oh my God. I actually thought I was being _too_ condescending in how baby-like I was being when I broke that down for you the first time but now I see you _still_ didn't get it. You apparently haven't even understood just how hard that example got fucked the entire time. I'll try to be more visual.
10 prisoners are being proposed as slaves. We'll call them Os:
OOOOOOOOOO
100 people will no longer be hungry due to the work of just 10 slaves. We'll call this other group Xs:
We've established that 10 people is enough to pull this off. So guess who could do this work instead:
XXXXXXXXXX
It takes 10 fucking people, man. There are 100 of these lazy motherfuckers. They have 10 times more than enough people to do it themselves and you're suggesting that not even 1 out of 10 of them get off their sorry ass, but instead force 10 slaves to do the work?
Actually there's no complexity here at all. Appreciate the simplicity of it.
I'm absolutely out of this shit, and you know that. I've told you that on so many occasions. I might think you're wrong sometimes, but I don't give a single fuck about changing your mind regarding any fucking thing. It's not my bag. It's irrelevant. Especially concerning these epic debates surrounding American politics. You're Scottish. I live in Australia. Who fucking cares what either of us think, seriously???
This one, I'm in because lloyd is a fucking trashbag...he literally graded his girlfriend's (who he SUPPOSEDLY loves) body as a D minus. He's posted about how we should exterminate the Chinese race. He has posted about how IT DOESN'T MATTER that the sick and elderly are dying ALONE from the rona because...hey...they were gonna die soon anyway. He is a literally bag of shit, and everything SW said is not fucking wrong. And I won't pretend to be objective about it for a second.
I also like shit stirring on this site and I like seeing you two bitch it out. You and I went through the same. I happen to agree with many of the things he says. Apparently that makes me deluded in your mind. Fair enough. Don't fucking squabble about it with me. You won't change my mind.
As far as you bringing up his girlfriend. Off topic. Inappropriate. The only point is to try and take him down a notch. Knock that shit off if you're gonna try and play debate club. It's pointless and obnoxious and serves no purpose except for mocking him.
As far as you and me, I don't take issue with you. I read your opinions. I disagree with most of them, but I find them interesting. We even agree occassionally. We're cool.
Having said that. Don't you make jokes about guys 'slipping into my DM's.' I was the one who messaged him first when I had gold and it was literally about trolling someone who tried to stalk me. He's just explaining himself. Please don't imply that he's...hitting on me. I'm happily engaged and my fiance reads this site sometimes. I'm in love with him and making jokes about some guy PMing me is so out of line (i edited so many swear words and threats out of that paragraph). Please don't EVER say that.
Oops no can't hold it in. Don't fucking ever joke about that or I will invite you on an all expenses paid cruise and then push you off the motherfucking boat...after I fucking CUT YOU...
That's fine dude but what's with the bitch-fest? Why are you dipping your toe in to rag on someone and then taking this approach of not caring? It's fine if you don't care, I don't expect you to but come on, dude? You can't expect to rag on someone and misrepresent them and then wonder why that person will have something to say about it. Did you read it all? I don't expect you to have but if you read it all are you really going to say I don't have an angle on this one? I mean, I assume that you haven't read it all because you claimed I used the Jennifer. L thing as an ad hom when it was barely a snippet that S.W turned into the main talking point.
He might be a shitbag, Countess, but I don't know that and so far my first real intro into his shit has concluded with this one position being approached with little to no charitability. If you looked at the conversation I had with him even I pressed him on his position a bit to find out what he actually believes but because he made a dumbass analogy people are going to use it to represent his entire view on the matter as if he didn't explain his position more in-depth that shows he generally doesn't support slavery, so where does that leave me if I cared enough to morally brand Lloyd as good as bad? His girlfriend's body might-well be a D, so what? Piece of shit way to talk about your girlfriend by my standards but maybe she is obese and it's just true? Maybe the dude has some sort of autism that makes him that blunt? If he thinks the Chinese should be exterminated then obviously that's racist bullshit but how can I possibly just blindly accept that representation of his views when nobody has offered him any charitability to genuinely ask him from my experience?
Look, I've said already and I don't wanna make too large a comment block (too late) but he may well be a piece of shit, I don't know, but if the aim is to just shit on him then be open about it, there's no need for this pretending to be objective thing from S.W if there isn't any intent to be.
It was off-topic but I won't say inappropriate. We had entered the shit flinging aspect of our conversation which (((he))) initiated, I'm not going to pull punches to people that I try to help out just because they've got a superiority complex. I tried to get them to have the conversation I assumed they were intending and he spat in my face for it, so fuck him. I don't doubt he's got an ex but if you're really going to believe this story of him hiding in an IIN bunker from some evil lurking woman possibly prowling the site only to realize he's the only one making it possible for such a woman to find out who he is when he claims that's why he deleted previous comments then I don't know what to say other than we have our separate views of that story he spun.
Deluded? Would entirely depend on what it is you're referencing. For the most part I tend to ignore his opinions until I reply to one and then it goes on and on.
The purpose isn't to mock him but to just blatantly display that people can cut holes in his bullshit. I can't reasonably debate with the guy because he's not interested in debate or discussion, which was what started this whole thing here. I even put the leg work in to facilitate him and Lloyd starting off on the same boat and he tossed it aside to hold onto one analogy to represent his entire views.
I don't take issue with you either but you definitely can give the impression that you do take issue but maybe that's just me assuming.
It was a joke. I know you're not interested in him that way and I know you're happily involved. It was actually something I was thinking about during out last conversation in remembering that we used to butt heads a lot and then I think you were away for a while and came back seeming more cheerful than I remembered you and it turned out you were in a relationship you were buzzing about. Maybe I got my timings wrong on that one. Anyway, it was a joke at his expense buuuuuuuut I do trust your word that it could be weird given your partner reads the site and I wouldn't want to cause any weirdness there. So, MrCountDouche just know it was a joke. Apologies.
Joke's on you, I'll take that cruise and a wee swim to go!...The cutting is optional, right?...Right?
Yikes, Countess. You actually falling for this dude's crap? There are two angles here. One, is the only thing Egyptians use concrete for was to build a Sphinx or second does he believe that they did more than just build some Sphinx with concrete? Could be either but he also centred his argument in his comments around slavery for the means of necessities and not simply for "vanity monuments" which was suggested.
Let's just say that it was a bad analogy, the approach taken was to use that bad analogy regardless of later clarifications only to entirely dismiss his actual position that he was putting forward that S.W entirely derailed from over a potentially bad analogy.
What you experienced here is what I've been trying to tell you anyone could see. She doesn't need to fall for my "crap".
All she needed do was see Lloyd's comment to know what he was talking about. Approach 100 random people. Ask them this question. The Pharoah is having his slaves haul 10-ton blocks across the desert. Why?
Unless you're asking people who have never heard of Ancient Egypt in their fucking life or you're asking with a shit-faced grin like it's a trick question, virtually all if not all of them are going to say some incarnation of vanity monuments which we'll define as any of the giant fuck-off structures they erected in the name of legacy. Most are going to simply say the pyramids.
It is the textbook example of slavery, and was such a cruel, extreme slavery that it's hard for some to even imagine humans could be pushed so hard, leading to conspiracy theories that aliens did it for them.
Lloyd knew exactly what he was talking about. He thought, pyramids. History. Inspiring. Bad ass.
He likely didn't cackle and twirl his mustache. He has his reasons, but the point is that none of this is black-and-white; of course Lloyd primarily condones slavery in situations where he believes it benefitted survival, but the fact is that, yes, he does make some other exceptions and he calls it fair game via hierarchies.
We agree on almost nothing, but I do believe you only condone slavery in situations where you perceive it to save lives.
It's like this. I feel there's a substantial line between where you are and where Countess and I are. Maybe someday some issue will be a smaller line between the two of us as well, who knows. But if you really think all other instances of slavery are inexcusable, there should be a giant, fuck-off vanity monument-sized line between the three of us and Lloyd but you can't stop making excuses for him. Come to the light ItDuz (Lol).
Nothing is black-and-white and he could have an even worse position on slavery, but we're just warning you that it's you being fooled here. Just because non-survival-related slavery isn't his favorite doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a guy who wants to exterminate entire races and does in fact believe that if your goal is grand enough exceptions can be made on the slavery rule due to hierarchy and people knowing their natural places.
I've repeated this again and again and you're intentionally ignoring my response to it which is exactly why this Lloyd situation started.
Lloyd made an analogy, vague one that could either be that his views line up with your representation OR his analogy did not line up with his actual views and he made a mistake. I said to you to figure this out and you didn't want to, so I done the leg-work. Lloyd then went into further depth to his position and his in-depth position ran counter to your representation his views that he mistakenly given the impression of holding. When I found out his position more than you did I then presented you with this information and you tossed it aside as if it wasn't relevant and now you outright ignore to even reference this position on the matter just so you can continue to falsely use the analogy to represent his entire view on the subject. This, to me, demonstrated a clear lack of intent to actually have a discussion on the concepts but to just mindlessly try to bully someone.
You don't get to dictate what Lloyd meant as you showed no intent to find out. I specifically pointed out there was a breakdown in communication and to ask him to specify what he meant by the comments and you outright refused to do so because you already had the approach you wanted even if it wouldn't be one in line with his genuine views on the matter.
In what way does he make other exceptions? He has openly said to me that slavery is not condonable at all if not for the necessities of survival. Yes, he referenced hierarchies as being part of our nature but that in itself is not condoning it, and you know that.
I don't know where my line is when it comes to slavery for the survival of others, I thought it would of been a really good conversation which is why I injected myself into the discussion but you ruined any attempts for that interesting discussion because you were more interested in shaming Lloyd than discussing it.
There is a very specific line between us. People like Countess won't see it because she also subscribes to the positions you use that are popular. Infact, It's more likely than not that we agree on more than we disagree, but our positions aren't the line that divides us. What divides us is I want the conversation and you want to use the conversation. I don't dislike you because we disagree, Countess herself can attest to this, but I don't view you as a genuine person, atleast not online.
He might have an even worse position, like I said he might be a piece of shit and I even granted you that you might be right but it's too muddied to know and you should ask and you refused because the muddy waters worked in your favor.
why are you atheist? why are you theist?
← View full post
THIS IS SO ENTERTAINING!!!!
HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, RANDOMLY HAULING STONE BLOCKS THROUGH THE DESERT. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SAID BLOCKS WERE FOR. REFUTED AD HOMINEM
*vaguely gestures at the sphinx*
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yeah this is really complicated shit to figure out. I mean if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it fucks like a duck, who fucking knows? Could be anything. On one hand we have the textbook example of slavery, but on the other hand maybe hauling giant fuck-off blocks feeds the people, the little-known great and ancient rock-eating people of Egypt.
Also remember, it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve. Please ignore that if 10 people is enough to stop starvation, the group of 100 can get off their own asses and stop their starvation 10 times over all by themselves.
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Look at his reply to me on another thread after mentioning I was tapping this shit out on a Samsung. "Oh it's fine! Nobody is perfect"
Yet, apparently you are not allowed to criticize slavery in lieu of your hypocritical use of some...kind...of...modern luxuries somewhere, like having shoes. Not allowed. In fact, extrapolating his weird standards regarding you, no one should ever criticize anything ever.
Drunk drivers...not wrong because you could hit someone with your car, so your criticism makes you a hypocrite? Also 'adhom' even though he can call you horrific names, and, apparently, being gale from hunger games who banged jlaw and got dumped discredits your opinion in some round about relevant way? But that's definitely not an ad hominem...
Fuckin' shitduz. If it makes you feel any better, I used to do 'this' with him and now he's weirdly respectful towards me. I have no idea why.
I agree with SW. Come at me shitduz. I won't even answer coz I'm lazy as fuck. But, seriously, shitduz, lloyd is a fucking trash heap though. Don't defend him. He would legit whip black people with a switch if it was socially acceptable.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly for the way the world works, which was Lloyd's position. S.W's position is that we can judge people as evil in the past for not having our modern understanding of humanity when it comes to slave labour but that if people in the future also do better than we do now that it would be entirely unreasonable for them to judge us the same way we judge those of the past. If you want to make that a case of simply me saying, "You can't criticize slavery!" then that's on you.
As for the drunk drivers thing, I don't think you're representing that argument too well. The topic we were discussing was in regards to wearing a mask and if someone is warranted vilifying someone for not lessening the risk of putting someone in harms way even if those people sacrifice more to ensure the likelihood of people being harmed is lessened. A lot of my arguments, like that one, has more to do with me holding people to their own standard beyond popular trends, and not mine which is exactly what I done with S.W here. If you don't want to be held to their own standards then stop vilifying others for not living up to your standards, essentially.
As for this being an adhom, he directed it to this. I didn't "ad hom" into this, infact you know fair well I'll try to respond to every single thing in a comment. I sure as shit did mention the cringey shit with less than a line of text, to suggest I used that subject to distract from the initial arguments is just wrong, it didn't replace the topic it was added to it barely. He then made his responses more about this smaller issue and that smaller issue got talked mostly about as he dropped the rest and that's how we're here. Don't put that shit on me, dude.
You can agree with S.W if you want, doesn't change anything. I don't know Lloyd, he might be a shitbrick and I even said as much earlier in this conversation but I view SW to be a shithead too and maybe you've just not seen it or maybe the bleeding heart preachy shit appeals to you but I don't trust that dude for a second and the more I've communicated with him the more it's been shown as to why I shouldn't.
All I know is that I actually asked Lloyd and he said he is completely against slavery and then I look to S.W to see how he responds to that and he just says, "Nuh-huh! He said slavery was good!" and then I see Lloyd claim that slavery was good when it was necessary for others to survive and then I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted.
So what the actual fuck, bruh?
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The actual fuck:
Listen, I'll be civil here & I apologize for being rude. Obviously the DM's thing rubbed me the the wrong way, but I don't really wish to rip on you.
I understand that it appears nonsensicle to profer a long opinion piece while also stating that I don't care. The reason I say that, to be clear, is because our disagreements are an abstraction. I remember getting INTO in with you about ray rice KO punching the living shit out of his gf. Basically, the disagreement was surrounding whether it is justifiable for a man to hit a woman if she strikes him first. Looking at the issue now, I can say with confidence, that while i still disagree with you, I don't feel the need to change your mind. Why? Because I've interacted with you enough to know that you aren't going to go home and sucker punch your gf in the throat. So while I may disagree with your opinion, it merely exists as a theoretical viewpoint, not something with actual consequences. So I don't NEED to change your mind. It is what it is. That's how I feel about most shit on here, and why I don't generally engage in the gigantic debates.
The reason I commented on this thread was because I found it funny exactly how much your negative opinion of this user is muddying your viewpoint.
Forgetting for a moment that lloyd is a giant fucking bag of dicks, and just reading what he said in a neutral tone...
The fuck off vanity monuments? When lloyd starts talking about hauling stone slabs through the desert, to me it is pretty fucking evident that he is referencing the pyramids. It was absolutely my first thought, before reading anything SW said. To me it was patently obvious.
Could he technically be referencing some other stones in some other desert? Sure, but come on. It's purposefully obtuse to point out that without context we know not of what he speaks. So while you are TECHNICALLY correct that there is an inference taken from his comment that could be completely erroneous, it's fucking not lol. I know you know he's talking about the pyramids. I know. We all fucking know. It's purposely dense to imply otherwise, and the reason it was harped on is because it is a patently ridiculous example of slavery being a justifiable, historical necessity. Namely, because the pyramids were not a fucking necessity at all.
The crux of this argument, fuck off vanity monuments aside, is that SW thinks lloyd is a fucking cock for thinking slavery is "OK" sometimes, you know, a necessary evil based on some abstract historical context. SW seems to think that slavery can not be justified, under any circumstance and saying that it cam be makes lloyd a fuckhole. This, I agree with. That opinion is illogical to you because it is an absolute, devoid of context, what you consider to be a modern moral choice that's being retroactively applied to a different time and lifestyle and set of cultural norms?
It is illogical. Nothing exists in a vacuum, but if you do not grant anyone the ability to hold the past accountable to our adjusted moral standards, then nothing ever done can be considered wrong. You do understand that? Not the halocaust. Not Chernobyl. Not the holodomer.
Now, forgetting that slavery is most certainly not a thing of the past. There are as many slaves and human trafficking victims today as there were during the trans Atlantic slave trade, I don't understand why this is a cross you chose to die on. I don't even get the drift that you, personally, think slavery is "ok."
I think you specifically take issue with this because you find ultra liberal people to be PREFORMATIVE. You use words like "virtue signalling" and "preachy" quite a bit to describe people who hold views like "slavery is not fucking ok."
I understand where that comes from, and there certainly are people that behave that way, but I strongly suspect it is because you don't actually believe this: "My position was that nobody is perfect and therefor we can't judge people too harshly."
The thing is, you do. You judge people who hold social justice esque viewpoints accountable to a comical degree. As soon as you start asking questions, grilling people about ethically sourcing everything they own, it become obvious that you want to expose their hypocrisy, and the fact that they do not live up to their own moral standards.
Let me spoil that for you. We are all hypocrites. We all fail. We all do unethical things. Every single person. That's because we are human, and unless we want to go live in a fucking yurt in the woods and grow our own vegetables, living in the modern world means you will fuck up and do immoral things.
What that doesn't mean is that all morality is therefore void, and pointless, and a waste. Because if you extrapolate that, then it makes it pointless to believe in anything.
I don't believe people should light cats on fire. I think it's wrong and cruel. I ate chicken last night. That chicken's death was probably a hellscape. That makes me a hypocrite. But should that mean I don't have the moral authority to tell people not to light cats on fire? No...that's fucking ridiculous. If that's the standard to which you hold people, then it abdicates everyone of the right to have any opinions about morality, and that's dangerous.
So yes, I agree with SW
No I don't think he's doing some fake virtue signaling bullshit I'm a fake good guy show by saying slavery is wrong
It is fucking wrong hahahaha. It's such a simple concept. Say it with me. Enslaving other human beings is a real dick move.
And this gf shit. I'm not gonna mention anything specific because he obviously told you he did not want it on the site, and yet you posted about it like 30 times...wtf. it obviously is a personal attack. I never saw the original comments, but I think you viewed him saying he had a hot gf as some type of humble brag? Well he should think he had a hot fucking gf. She was his fucking GF FFS.. I don't see how that should be embarrasing or whatever, but you're obviously using the situation to mock him. It is completely irrelevant to your disagreement with him, and it should absolutely not be harped on if you're gonna accuse other people of AD HOM. you know that too. Don't be obtuse.
You really just want to disagree with this specific user I think and rake him over the coals, which is fine. You're entitled to that opinion, but don't allow it to cloud the truth that LLOYD FUCKING ASHER IS A COCK FACE who is wrong.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hmm. You know, I actually hadn't thought of it like that. I didn't think it could be taken as a humblebrag because the general consensus of the post was that she was average and I, myself, was saying I perhaps unfairly had a hard time seeing her as even average after coming to think of someone who looked like her as a bad person (although I absolutely did think that person was beautiful while in love, which I said I had, but I always do that and specified that).
It just seemed _especially_ relevant to mention. Like with any post, if something in my life is relevant to it, I might comment about it provided it doesn't potentially break anonymity, and I almost did. I don't even reveal what state of the US I came from outside of messages. I wouldn't have even said the US but I ended up saying enough to make it obvious in the past. This actually isn't even the first comment I've deleted because of crossing the line. I've come pretty close when mentioning various jobs, etc., and begrudgingly decided to delete them before they were even seen (to my knowledge).
You might be onto something and it triggered some jealousy, but I'm actually pretty sure ItDuz had said he thought she was average before I even commented. I really don't think he was jealous or thought I was humblebragging all the same given the nature of the consensus on the post. For a while I thought he just wanted to make sure it was seen to fuck me over, but that's not it either.
I've come to the conclusion that he just honestly felt I gave a fuck about his opinion and that saying things like "when I'm in love I see my girlfriends as the best there is" embarrassed me, which it clearly doesn't as I'm doubling down right now. I own that shit. Since he can't win a debate with me for shit (and it's absolutely about "winning" for him), he had taken me deleting that as a weird consolation prize and didn't cope well with realizing I'm fine with everything in the post besides the specific details that could fuck me over.
So in his defense, I no longer think it's really a personal _attack_. It's just more denial like with the stone blocks because it had really meant the world to his little heart. Just like it's not hard at all to see why I did what I did, it's not hard at all to see what the blocks were for, but he would have to say he was wrong to admit that.
I absolutely agree he loathes me, it's abundantly obvious, but I also think it's not about me specifically. He just hates being proven wrong. Anyone could be doing what I'm doing instead of me and he would feel the same. It's not hard to out obvious denial which has been the heart of every debate we've ever had. They're the easiest kind of debate there is for the one not denying obvious facts.
It started with his denial of Trump's role in the Capitol riots. It's always about denial. I don't think we've even once debated something that wasn't a matter of denial on his part. It doesn't make me or anyone else particular impressive for pointing out obvious denial.
He outs his insecurities when he uses accusations like "performative" because it's actually what he's low-key doing. While we're fairly anonymous on here there's still a bit of identity attached to our names. If every comment was totally anonymous, he wouldn't even be pretending to believe the blocks were about something else or that I have a problem with him of all people feeling anything is cringe when he knows the blocks were for the pyramids and he knows I'm not ashamed of my emotions, certainly not regarding a fucking social conservative of all people.
It's _usually_ about him as ItDuz specifically, his identity here, not being proven wrong. He's low-key narcissistic as fuck which is why it's so funny to mirror and amplify the same to him because no one hates external narcissism like a narcissist and it makes their skin crawl like nothing else. I've hinted that I do this to him for fun but he completely missed it. Guess the cat's out if the bag now.
Still, we're, myself included, overlooking how this really started in this _particular_ instance. It's not about hatred of me or even of anyone else who might take the time to call him out on his very easily called-out shit. For once it's not even about his profound aversion to being proven wrong. The answer is actually the simplest one of all, right at the root of everything:
He's simply protecting Lloyd regardless of hating me or protecting his ego. He feels he has to because he knows damn well it's usually always him, Lloyd, and WeirdGuyFromTheSouth spewing their viewpoints. When one of them suddenly says "slavery was okay" this is a massive fucking problem and he started acting like a defense lawyer for a drunken client at best and a murderer's mother at worst. He was long before I called him on it. The format was like this.
LloydAsher: Horrible shit
ItDuz: But what you really mean is this right?
LA: Horrible shit
ID: Okay, I'm going to handfeed you an alibi. Please fucking take it.
LA: Horrible shit
ID: But you really mean... like... dude, come on...
Then I called it out. Just imagine that standard he holds me to and imagine the opposite. It's like the saying about what Trumpers say about anything Trump says: He didn't say that, but if he did he didn't mean it like that, and if he meant it like that, others have said worse.
That's the nutshell this is in.
--
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
"LloydAsher: Horrible shit
ItDuz: But what you really mean is this right?
LA: Horrible shit
ID: Okay, I'm going to handfeed you an alibi. Please fucking take it.
LA: Horrible shit
ID: But you really mean... like... dude, come on..."
This fucking made me laugh so fucking hard. Omg.
He explained his opinion of the matter of your ex (which for some reason IS RELEVANT) in more detail. I'm not sure if you can see his reply to me since I believe he's blocked you.
But, apparently a humbrag is not what made this interaction...which I wasn't even here for...SO GODDAMN FUCKING EGREGIOUS that it needs to be brought up over and over again, while we keep repeating the celebrity's name OVER and OVER again so anyone who reads it KNOWS exactly what is being discussed...is this
Saying you think the woman you are dating is the most beautiful person in the world to you is apparently incredibly disingenuous. It's performative. And big lie city.
You're supposed to say she's a D minus, at best. So you should be really embarrassed to be attracted to her. CRINGE CITY.
My fiance would never say such disgusting things to me. When I ask him if he likes my dress, he always says "SHUT THE FUCK UP, STUPID DANNY DEVITO WHORE. DON'T MAKE ME GET THE PHONEBOOK" like a normal person. None of this mincing about, telling people they're pretty. That's some straight up pussy bullshit.
Then...because you were so ashamed when you realized how disgusting and SUPER GAY it is to think your own girlfriend is hot, then you got embarrassed, deleted your post and THEN you crafted an entire fake soap opera where you lied and said she uses the site. Because that is such an unbelievable story...you know, to actually tell your SO what you are doing tapping away on the phone & tell them what site you were on. My fiance never reads this site (hey brett, YOU HIDEOUS D MINUS CUNTFACE ;)
So in short, you should never admit to being attracted to the people you date. Gross. And they also definitely don't have internet access...nobody does.
AND THE FUCKING BLOCKS. Why!? Why were the fucking blocks even a thing? Everyone knows what the motherfucking blocks are for. Why is the fucking Pharoah moving motherfucking blocks, goddamnit? We. All. Know. Why. The blocks being a subject of debate is ABSURD.
1.
It's fine if you want to rip on me. Tbh the original conversation has been pivoted away so much that I'm surprised I'm still even responding even after knowing I can't actually expect the original conversation to go back on track. If I'm short here it's just to save space and time, I'm not being sassy if I say I agree with you or accept what you say as fair.
2.
- Makes sense.
3.
- That may be fair but I actually approached him in good faith to this argument and he initiated the condescending and insulting comments. I even tried to help him on a point to bring them both on the same page to see where they could actually disagree genuinely.
- He is a douchebag in my eyes. Did you read his comments where he has like 3 lines of relevant response and then 6 lines of comments referring to himself as shit like a giant black widow spinning it's webs like he's auditioning to play some live action Naruto villain type shit and then goes into gaslighting using subjects of addictions just to shame someone and making that their main go-to? I won't pretend to know you personally due to this being online and all but no way would you of not seen that as cringy bullshit from an egomaniac.
4.
- Lloyd might of made that analogy, I even claimed that might of been the case to S.W when I wasn't arguing with him. That said, Lloyd also made other comments that would imply that it's entirely possible for his analogy to be a misguided one that doesn't actually represent his views. Noticing this I inform S.W of this and he just passes it off as not even existing so I do the leg work and once I get down to it, despite S.W saying the opposite, Lloyd in far more depth explains that he does not believe slavery is justified nor moral, albeit for multiple and sometimes separate reasons. I've said this time and time to S.W and all I get in response is, "But he said he wants them to build monuments! That's what he said!" and I have to keep coming back to the fact that it isn't the only thing Lloyd said, infact it's a very small portion of what he said.
5.
- I haven't thought on the topic of if it's more moral to enslave a few for the many or to let the many die for the freedom of the few, I wanted to have that conversation to explore it but now I can't because it turned out the people I assumed were looking to have that conversation, or atleast one of them, were only doing it to knock the other and not actually discuss the topic.
- I mean if I really wanted to be an asshole I could do the same type of thing that's been done to me and Lloyd here and just throw out a, "Wow, wait...You know prisoners actually fall under the definition of slave? Wait, you think rapists should be able to go free? Why do you want women to be raped? Your principles aren't realistic! Make a perfect scenario where prisoners go free without hurting anyone otherwise you support slavery!" But it's gross to do that shit and I can fill in the blanks myself, and I just feel that courtesy is one sided.
6.
- Holding the past accountable is fine so long as we do it with the understanding that not every wrong doing was with the knowledge of it being wrong-doing and served a purpose, but then again I'm sure Hitler thought the same with your holocaust example, but then again we can't paint all things we learned from as having no reasoning behind them while other ones, like the holocaust, clearly have nothing to consider. It's a more complicated topic than I think we should get into here.
- That said, how would this work alongside the fact S.W stated that while we can judge the past that the future can't judge us or that it wouldn't be reasonable for them to do so even if they learn from our mistakes?
7.
- Ofcourse I don't think slavery is ok but neither did Lloyd when I asked him and people are still saying he thinks it's ok. I just wanted to join a discussion about using slavery to meet necessary bigger picture ends and bounce some ideas but he wouldn't do that though wouldn't stop running his mouth.
8.
- Nah. For example I don't think you're a virtue signaller as far as I'm aware of but when he is going the "Slavery is not ok, bigot!" spiel and then the dude he's saying that to is like, "Yeah...I know?" and he just repeats, "BUT SLAVERY IS NOT OK, BIGOT!" then yeah, that's performative because he knows there's a disconnect there but he also knows he can use Lloyd as a stepping stone to stand above everyone else and say, "I DISAGREE WITH SLAVERY!" and the crowd throws cookies over such a brave sentiment that nobody disagreed with him on. Then there was the Jennifer.L post. Holy fuck, that was just filled with egoism but the story he spun after it made it even worse. He was too beyond simply admitting something as mundane as being cringy and made this big story arch to avoid it. Then ofcourse there's the outright delusions of grandeur that I mentioned above, fuckin' spider manning it up.
9.
- Yes, I like to expose when people don't live up to their own standards when they're trying to force others to live up to them or shame others for not living up to them. Nobody is perfect but that doesn't mean I won't take issue with people pretending they are perfect as they attack someone else for not being perfect.
10.
- Ok, I'll be clear here, dude. I barely even referenced it with less than a line, a snippet with barely any relevant information this "ex" could use and he took that as a way to turn the vast majority of his response into making the subject about that half a line of text. I'm sorry but at that point I refuse to accept this representation that I turned the talk into it when it was him that blew the topic up.
- I'll also say this. I don't for a second believe the story of his ex potentially being on this site exists, I think it was a made up story to cover up his easily bruised ego, and if you were in my shoes watching this dude going, "Don't say nothing! She might be hearing! But anyway, here's my credit card number, date of birth, my first pet's name, and what I like to do on Saturday nights" then you'd think the same.
- Ohohoho, no, no. People have hot girlfriends and I don't why you'd assume that was what my issue with him was. The post was one big jerk-off. The dude made, I shit you not, like an eight paragraph post about how any girl he's with is automatically the prettiest woman alive because he looks at their character and because he loves them and adores them, and all that mushy cliche shit for eight paragraphs. I didn't even think such a thing would be possible and maybe there would be contexts for it but on a damn post about someone finding a celebrity pretty? I simple responded, "Jesus Chriiiiiist, dude" and he then tried to say that was me trying to warn him and be chummy with him claiming it to be positive exchange I was making with him because there was too much information an ex of his could use, even though he never once referenced some ex stalking him on this site or potentially being able to for me to warn him about. I was just so dumbfounded I responded, "I'te".
- It's shit like that which makes me think he's doing this performative shit.
11.
- Lloyd might be, I don't know. You know full well I've probably done the most on this site to demonstrate that I'm not looking for friendships.
This might be a jumbled mess but I can't be assed reading through it all before sending it like I usually do. If I've missed something you want answered lemme know. The numbers are mainly to help me out here. Lol.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
CountessDouche
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
*Throws smoke bomb*
BLAM.
*Ninja run*
*Webs for the high ground*
*Observes (narcissistically)*
"--he then tried to say that was me trying to warn him and be chummy with him--"
*Webs up and discards BS*
I already made it clear that I didn't think you were _trying_ to be positive. That's ridiculous. You hate me. I just said it ended up _being_ positive, which you hated because you wouldn't piss on me to put a fire out. I wouldn't have expected you to do anything less than act like a POS.
Look, I'm going to level with you since the cat's out of the bag and it was already pretty obvious to everyone else... I'm... I'm Spider-Man, ItDuz. I couldn't have my ex find out which user I am because she would have inevitably told you all that I'm Spider-Man. But I've decided this site might finally be the perfect medium for me to communicate with the world.
*Has a sip of egomaniac flavored Monster energy drink*
Look, dude. First of all, I definitely didn't forshadowingly comment "this is what I do" a few months ago on your comment saying you think it's amusing to detect negative perceptions that someone else has and amplify them to the point of absurdity. No. This is the point we're at now. I'm fucking Spider-Man. Drop comments and suggestions below for how I can better protect the city with my inhuman abilities.
Or wait. Here's another one. I'm like Dexter, you know, the serial killer who only kills serial killers. I'm that but with with narcissism. My father could tell something was wrong with me early on and trained me to be a good person, to only use my narcissistic powers to utterly infuriate thinly veiled narcissists on internet forums. Oh, how the beatings were long and brutal. He didn't even use the phonebook; he used encyclopedias. But it's thanks to him that I'm here today to... ugh... fuck it.
Nah. I'm going to run with Spider-Man.
*Webs away (performatively)*
Listen, I'm not gonna respond to all of your points because, I agree, that this post has gotten incredibly off topic, and while i understand what you're saying, responding bit by bit will literally send me off onto 5 tangents about the importance of german history, my thoughts on prison reform, and a bunch of bullshit regarding the philosophy of moral relativism, and you don't want to read all that shit because it will ultimately just be a giant expansion on my same original points, which i still stand by.
I will say this, though. I understand that you find him to be disingenuous and performative, but I'm super surprised you're blocking him...ever since i started visiting this site, the only thing I've ever seen you use it for was to engage in debates with people you disagree with. It's literally what you do here, so I'm surprised you are noping out of the chance to engage with someone who is on the opposite side of the spectrum. Also, it's entertaining, so boo shitduz
And one other thing, this is an aside. You've made a few comments on this thread (which I now can't find because everything is scattered all over the place) expressing your opinion that this user has duped me, manipulated me, tricked me somehow into buying his bullshit? That's so fucking condescending. Don't fucking insult my intelligence. I'm perfectly capable of critical thought and perfectly able to form my own opinion independently. I don't agree with everything he says, and I would have no problem expressing that if I felt like it. I doubt he would either. But the idea that he pulled a big one over on me and somehow manipulated me into...what...agreeing with him about some shit on the internet. That's insulting, dude.
Beep beep. Pull over. This is a bullshit check. Step out of the car with your hands on your head.
"I offered that situation to S.W and he fucking agreed with the analogy that slavery for necessities is warranted."
That shit right there, that didn't happen. I told you I'd even rather society be generations behind if it meant there had been no slavery. That said, her reading comprehension actually works, so she already knows that. Just like how she doesn't pretend it's even remotely difficult to know what Lloyd was talking about with the 10-ton blocks.
The only thing I can even possibly think of that could be confusing you is me saying that I don't judge the people who were buying goods like bamboo who didn't even necessarily know where the fuck it came from. I judge the slave drivers absolutely and in all circumstances. I completely derailed your suggestion that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve by pointing out the obvious: The 100 is 10 times enough people to do the work themselves. Slavery is _never_ justifiable. Period. It's like rape It's not a good look to even suggest situations wherein it's justifiable or even merely less wrong.
"I don't trust that dude for a second."
Hahaha. I've never told you this, but it's always tickled me pink when you say, "I don't click links from you."
Not just links, links from _me_. None of that's as good as Clunk42 calling me evil though. It's as if just because I murder you social conservatives so hard disputationally you start fearing me in other ways, thinking like, "Man, this is a dangerous motherfucker."
I feel like a fucking oversized black widow spider crawling around a bunch of arachophobes. It's so fucking funny. I'm completely harmless to everything but your egos and the perceived validity of your positions.
Oh, yeah! I was probably abusive to my ex as well! It gets better and better. Which way? Still funny if you only think I'm emotionally abusive, given the way I chew you up and spit you out, but it will be even funnier if after all the verbal spankings you've had to endure you even imagine me beating the shit out of women because it's just impossible to imagine me as a nice guy after you've felt the heat.
You're right though. So abusive. That's probably why she's trying to get back with _me_ and I'm the one who has _her_ blocked for my own mental health. I'm really just afraid, as you suggested, that she'll sign up and tell everyone how abusive I am. Logic checks out.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh you edited more in.
The reason why I dont trust the link is because the first one you sent i looked up the site and the first result was virus related. Most likely theres nothing to worry about I dont take those risks.
Actually nevermind, the rest is just you wanking yourself off again. Get to the arguments plz.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Consider dual-booting and running a Linux OS for your browsing. You're virtually immune then. It could happen but you're about as likely to get a serious virus as be hit by a car.
For one, the virus actually has to be designed to infect Linux and no one wastes their time designing viruses for anything besides major OSs like Windows and Android. Additionally, Linux is just inherently more secure and won't give the malware root access anyway. There has never been a single widespread Linux virus.
Being careful is always good but it's one Hell of a safety net.
Yes it fuckin' did, dude. I asked you about the 10 and 100 group thing and you said that the ten can get up off their asses to do what was required to save the 100. Or was this the thing where you vaguely answer and leave enough of a wiggle room to backtrack only to display you never even answered the question to begin with?
Ok, I'll ask again. 10 people in one area, 100 in another. Skip all the realism bullshit as that's what a hypothetical is for. If 9 of those ten can save 100 people but don't want to put the work in so one out of that 10 finds a mean to force them into slavery to save that 100 people, what would your option be and is it a simple "But slavery bahd!" situation?
I didn't ask you if you'd prefer society be further behind, I was talking about lives. Again you're trying to hard to pivot by giving mucky answers that don't even relate.
You're still using the 10-ton block argument but I've already said to you time and time again that he went into further depth on the topic which demonstrated that the analogy doesn't work with his more in-depth review of the topic and therefor can be considered an analogy that doesn't represent his views. You think you can watch someone make a mistake, run away, and use that one mistake to represent them and you're still purposely avoiding this explanation and just repeating the same 10-ton line I already addressed.
I didn't suggest that it's better to enslave 10 people than let 100 starve, I simply made you aware that it was the core of the argument Lloyd was making. Yes, the 100 people is bigger but that's the point of hypotheticals, my dude, so that we can argue the rational behind something without the exact scape-goat shit you're doing there.
So I'll ask again. 10 people one side, 100 on the other. 100 can't survive without the work of the 10. Would you rather the 100 die or the 10 be enslaved to save the 10?
I'm not even looking for you to pick a side but simply to appreciate the complexity of it.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Oh my God. I actually thought I was being _too_ condescending in how baby-like I was being when I broke that down for you the first time but now I see you _still_ didn't get it. You apparently haven't even understood just how hard that example got fucked the entire time. I'll try to be more visual.
10 prisoners are being proposed as slaves. We'll call them Os:
OOOOOOOOOO
100 people will no longer be hungry due to the work of just 10 slaves. We'll call this other group Xs:
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
We've established that 10 people is enough to pull this off. So guess who could do this work instead:
XXXXXXXXXX
It takes 10 fucking people, man. There are 100 of these lazy motherfuckers. They have 10 times more than enough people to do it themselves and you're suggesting that not even 1 out of 10 of them get off their sorry ass, but instead force 10 slaves to do the work?
Actually there's no complexity here at all. Appreciate the simplicity of it.
I'm absolutely out of this shit, and you know that. I've told you that on so many occasions. I might think you're wrong sometimes, but I don't give a single fuck about changing your mind regarding any fucking thing. It's not my bag. It's irrelevant. Especially concerning these epic debates surrounding American politics. You're Scottish. I live in Australia. Who fucking cares what either of us think, seriously???
This one, I'm in because lloyd is a fucking trashbag...he literally graded his girlfriend's (who he SUPPOSEDLY loves) body as a D minus. He's posted about how we should exterminate the Chinese race. He has posted about how IT DOESN'T MATTER that the sick and elderly are dying ALONE from the rona because...hey...they were gonna die soon anyway. He is a literally bag of shit, and everything SW said is not fucking wrong. And I won't pretend to be objective about it for a second.
I also like shit stirring on this site and I like seeing you two bitch it out. You and I went through the same. I happen to agree with many of the things he says. Apparently that makes me deluded in your mind. Fair enough. Don't fucking squabble about it with me. You won't change my mind.
As far as you bringing up his girlfriend. Off topic. Inappropriate. The only point is to try and take him down a notch. Knock that shit off if you're gonna try and play debate club. It's pointless and obnoxious and serves no purpose except for mocking him.
As far as you and me, I don't take issue with you. I read your opinions. I disagree with most of them, but I find them interesting. We even agree occassionally. We're cool.
Having said that. Don't you make jokes about guys 'slipping into my DM's.' I was the one who messaged him first when I had gold and it was literally about trolling someone who tried to stalk me. He's just explaining himself. Please don't imply that he's...hitting on me. I'm happily engaged and my fiance reads this site sometimes. I'm in love with him and making jokes about some guy PMing me is so out of line (i edited so many swear words and threats out of that paragraph). Please don't EVER say that.
Oops no can't hold it in. Don't fucking ever joke about that or I will invite you on an all expenses paid cruise and then push you off the motherfucking boat...after I fucking CUT YOU...
BITCH...or something
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's fine dude but what's with the bitch-fest? Why are you dipping your toe in to rag on someone and then taking this approach of not caring? It's fine if you don't care, I don't expect you to but come on, dude? You can't expect to rag on someone and misrepresent them and then wonder why that person will have something to say about it. Did you read it all? I don't expect you to have but if you read it all are you really going to say I don't have an angle on this one? I mean, I assume that you haven't read it all because you claimed I used the Jennifer. L thing as an ad hom when it was barely a snippet that S.W turned into the main talking point.
He might be a shitbag, Countess, but I don't know that and so far my first real intro into his shit has concluded with this one position being approached with little to no charitability. If you looked at the conversation I had with him even I pressed him on his position a bit to find out what he actually believes but because he made a dumbass analogy people are going to use it to represent his entire view on the matter as if he didn't explain his position more in-depth that shows he generally doesn't support slavery, so where does that leave me if I cared enough to morally brand Lloyd as good as bad? His girlfriend's body might-well be a D, so what? Piece of shit way to talk about your girlfriend by my standards but maybe she is obese and it's just true? Maybe the dude has some sort of autism that makes him that blunt? If he thinks the Chinese should be exterminated then obviously that's racist bullshit but how can I possibly just blindly accept that representation of his views when nobody has offered him any charitability to genuinely ask him from my experience?
Look, I've said already and I don't wanna make too large a comment block (too late) but he may well be a piece of shit, I don't know, but if the aim is to just shit on him then be open about it, there's no need for this pretending to be objective thing from S.W if there isn't any intent to be.
It was off-topic but I won't say inappropriate. We had entered the shit flinging aspect of our conversation which (((he))) initiated, I'm not going to pull punches to people that I try to help out just because they've got a superiority complex. I tried to get them to have the conversation I assumed they were intending and he spat in my face for it, so fuck him. I don't doubt he's got an ex but if you're really going to believe this story of him hiding in an IIN bunker from some evil lurking woman possibly prowling the site only to realize he's the only one making it possible for such a woman to find out who he is when he claims that's why he deleted previous comments then I don't know what to say other than we have our separate views of that story he spun.
Deluded? Would entirely depend on what it is you're referencing. For the most part I tend to ignore his opinions until I reply to one and then it goes on and on.
The purpose isn't to mock him but to just blatantly display that people can cut holes in his bullshit. I can't reasonably debate with the guy because he's not interested in debate or discussion, which was what started this whole thing here. I even put the leg work in to facilitate him and Lloyd starting off on the same boat and he tossed it aside to hold onto one analogy to represent his entire views.
I don't take issue with you either but you definitely can give the impression that you do take issue but maybe that's just me assuming.
It was a joke. I know you're not interested in him that way and I know you're happily involved. It was actually something I was thinking about during out last conversation in remembering that we used to butt heads a lot and then I think you were away for a while and came back seeming more cheerful than I remembered you and it turned out you were in a relationship you were buzzing about. Maybe I got my timings wrong on that one. Anyway, it was a joke at his expense buuuuuuuut I do trust your word that it could be weird given your partner reads the site and I wouldn't want to cause any weirdness there. So, MrCountDouche just know it was a joke. Apologies.
Joke's on you, I'll take that cruise and a wee swim to go!...The cutting is optional, right?...Right?
Yikes, Countess. You actually falling for this dude's crap? There are two angles here. One, is the only thing Egyptians use concrete for was to build a Sphinx or second does he believe that they did more than just build some Sphinx with concrete? Could be either but he also centred his argument in his comments around slavery for the means of necessities and not simply for "vanity monuments" which was suggested.
Let's just say that it was a bad analogy, the approach taken was to use that bad analogy regardless of later clarifications only to entirely dismiss his actual position that he was putting forward that S.W entirely derailed from over a potentially bad analogy.
Just for real, do you think that's fair?
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
What you experienced here is what I've been trying to tell you anyone could see. She doesn't need to fall for my "crap".
All she needed do was see Lloyd's comment to know what he was talking about. Approach 100 random people. Ask them this question. The Pharoah is having his slaves haul 10-ton blocks across the desert. Why?
Unless you're asking people who have never heard of Ancient Egypt in their fucking life or you're asking with a shit-faced grin like it's a trick question, virtually all if not all of them are going to say some incarnation of vanity monuments which we'll define as any of the giant fuck-off structures they erected in the name of legacy. Most are going to simply say the pyramids.
It is the textbook example of slavery, and was such a cruel, extreme slavery that it's hard for some to even imagine humans could be pushed so hard, leading to conspiracy theories that aliens did it for them.
Lloyd knew exactly what he was talking about. He thought, pyramids. History. Inspiring. Bad ass.
He likely didn't cackle and twirl his mustache. He has his reasons, but the point is that none of this is black-and-white; of course Lloyd primarily condones slavery in situations where he believes it benefitted survival, but the fact is that, yes, he does make some other exceptions and he calls it fair game via hierarchies.
We agree on almost nothing, but I do believe you only condone slavery in situations where you perceive it to save lives.
It's like this. I feel there's a substantial line between where you are and where Countess and I are. Maybe someday some issue will be a smaller line between the two of us as well, who knows. But if you really think all other instances of slavery are inexcusable, there should be a giant, fuck-off vanity monument-sized line between the three of us and Lloyd but you can't stop making excuses for him. Come to the light ItDuz (Lol).
Nothing is black-and-white and he could have an even worse position on slavery, but we're just warning you that it's you being fooled here. Just because non-survival-related slavery isn't his favorite doesn't change the fact that we're talking about a guy who wants to exterminate entire races and does in fact believe that if your goal is grand enough exceptions can be made on the slavery rule due to hierarchy and people knowing their natural places.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I've repeated this again and again and you're intentionally ignoring my response to it which is exactly why this Lloyd situation started.
Lloyd made an analogy, vague one that could either be that his views line up with your representation OR his analogy did not line up with his actual views and he made a mistake. I said to you to figure this out and you didn't want to, so I done the leg-work. Lloyd then went into further depth to his position and his in-depth position ran counter to your representation his views that he mistakenly given the impression of holding. When I found out his position more than you did I then presented you with this information and you tossed it aside as if it wasn't relevant and now you outright ignore to even reference this position on the matter just so you can continue to falsely use the analogy to represent his entire view on the subject. This, to me, demonstrated a clear lack of intent to actually have a discussion on the concepts but to just mindlessly try to bully someone.
You don't get to dictate what Lloyd meant as you showed no intent to find out. I specifically pointed out there was a breakdown in communication and to ask him to specify what he meant by the comments and you outright refused to do so because you already had the approach you wanted even if it wouldn't be one in line with his genuine views on the matter.
In what way does he make other exceptions? He has openly said to me that slavery is not condonable at all if not for the necessities of survival. Yes, he referenced hierarchies as being part of our nature but that in itself is not condoning it, and you know that.
I don't know where my line is when it comes to slavery for the survival of others, I thought it would of been a really good conversation which is why I injected myself into the discussion but you ruined any attempts for that interesting discussion because you were more interested in shaming Lloyd than discussing it.
There is a very specific line between us. People like Countess won't see it because she also subscribes to the positions you use that are popular. Infact, It's more likely than not that we agree on more than we disagree, but our positions aren't the line that divides us. What divides us is I want the conversation and you want to use the conversation. I don't dislike you because we disagree, Countess herself can attest to this, but I don't view you as a genuine person, atleast not online.
He might have an even worse position, like I said he might be a piece of shit and I even granted you that you might be right but it's too muddied to know and you should ask and you refused because the muddy waters worked in your favor.