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 this comment's parent
← View full post
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.