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
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.