fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There’s two justifications for those preferences, pick one:
A) It’s hard wired. Counterexamples: men don’t act like it’s all that important, especially in their sexual desires, the most hard-wired of all, desires that bypass the brain entirely. Women do have problems with promiscuity in men.
B) There are rational reasons for those preferences. Answer: Those mostly went away with modernity.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Likewise, the question isn't whether a promiscuous man should want a promiscuous woman, the question is whether he actually does.
You said his strategy was to have a high body count. So to get the non-promiscuous woman he wants, he should want promiscuous women. It creates a paradox in evolutionary terms.
Secondly, does he actually want a virgin wife ? Sure, if you ply me with studies showing promiscuity and infidelity are correlated, I’ll concede that less is better, I guess. But it’s not important to me like attractiveness is. Show me the man who averted his eyes from porn because it featured a promiscuous woman. And women’s love of men’s promiscuity is even less clear.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
OP is not going to defend his statements, he never does. OP is actually far right and I'm sure he thanks you for your service. You just keep walking into it, people.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
What truth? It’s a murky conjecture at best, lacking a clear motive. And the nationalistic pride baiting around it is so transparent. Why did they do it? I guess they just wanted to prove the greatest country on earth is a little bitch, sammy. Now what are you gonna do about it when you grow up?
I suggest you remember the maine instead.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
As if you get to define both honor and evil in order to serve your own purpose.
I was disputing FC’s point that we should value leaders who conduct themselves “honorably”, even for an evil cause. If you want to make the case that the confederacy was not evil, that’s a different argument (and one I am less interested in).
There’s a semi-famous 18th century german general whose epitaph reads “Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam keine Ehre brach’(‘Chose disgrace, when obedience brought no honor’. ) They aren’t the same thing.
There are many reasons why someone would follow orders beyond voluntarily surrendering their humanity. The most obvious one being fear of punishment or reprisal, and it's so obvious I wonder how you could have omitted it from your perspective.
Coercion is an excuse for doing evil, my problem is with the claim that following evil orders is worthy of praise/honorable/good.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
May I ask what your moral framework is based on?
Mostly utilitarian, but golden rule with some bells and whistles also works. As in: Do I want people to behave honorably when serving an evil master that is harming me and others? No, I want them to be as dishonorable as possible, and stab the guy in the back.
He wasn't talking about how it absolves anyone of moral responsibility, he was saying you might want to think twice before you wish for armies that don't follow orders.
I don’t see the argument. How would the world have been worse off if Lee, and the rest of the confederacy, had decided that their cause and this war was a stupid, disgraceful affair?
Saying "we shouldn't purge the world of statues of honorable men fighting for the wrong cause" is not "refusing to discriminate between shades of grey".
He spoke generally, and I was responding to those claims. Such as:
one can[not] simply "do the right thing"
I can give him this line every time the woke do something he doesn’t approve of.
‘they see morality as a solved problem’ and ‘[as] obviously and eternally correct ‘
strawmannish.
Are you trying to butter up your audience, dude? Is it campaigning season for nobility seats already? Your motte-approved opinions, appreciation for wholesome americana, and humble family beginnings are besides the point. No configuration of these parameters would justify that privilege.
You say you want to recognize luck and ‘a sense of duty’(applause), but your method is to recognize blood instead of merit, both subject to luck. Luck is tangential to your argument. If luck was our primary concern, we should forget blood and merit, and draw lots for membership in the ruling class.
The angry journalist at vice also believes he is helping society by supporting opposite causes to your own. In his defense, his self-interest is hidden, he doesn’t nakedly request aristocratic status for his prosocial efforts.
fuckduck9000
9mo ago
Like I told you last time also, my problem is not with you or SS, but with foreverlurker, cake, and all his alts, who is right now plying the sub with his garbage, while you are all cheerfully pretending the discussion developed organically. Do you genuinely not see it, or this some sort of balancing of the scales for your oppression by society? Do we have to tolerate your blatant, daily astroturfing to compensate for your censorship elsewhere?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Classic feminist nonsense. Do they also like gay men’s fashion ironically, to laugh at how fashion-obsessed the imposed female gender role is?
Drag queens are extremely technically proficient at make-up and they don't try to look like attractive women.
High performer with a noncompete clause. Looks like enough of an explanation.
fuckduck9000
3mo ago
Because as worthless as it may be, it’s still a life, and we should not get comfortable taking it with the simple push of a button.
On the specifics of the case, I have a problem condemning multiple people to death for a single murder. It’s blowing past the balance of lex talionis, into this exponentially growing orgy of bloody vengeance.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I think the punishment for minor, occasional infractions should be capped at a few days ban.
But if you want to keep the system uncapped, your authority unbounded: when you refer to a permaban in a warning or day-ban, it’s such an outsized threat that it comes across as a taunt and a dare. Like a cop pulling a gun after he caught you speeding.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I don’t mind if they dance on the ban line all their life, I have a problem with the actual banning. You ratchet the punishments automatically, so their days are numbered – as you sometimes remind your victims, like Hlynka here, which is hardly helpful.
fuckduck9000
4mo ago
I'd consider myself a left leaning authoritarian neo-liberal if anything.
I don’t think it’s liberal of you to support the punching of innocents.
Aren’t authoritarianism and liberalism usually opposed to one another? Authoritarian neo-liberalism sounds like the ultimate booword every political party says they oppose. Or maybe it’s Pinochet.
Reddit should do what the owners of Reddit want it to do, that is the point of ownership.
Cop-out. You have no opinion on the choices they made, and the state of our old home? How would you, as the legitimate owner, moderate it?
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Better to let the mob have this impotent outlet for their censorious impulse than through accusations of rules-violating behaviour.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
Lazy accusation. Objectively, this data point supports the left’s “loser narrative”, not the right’s, and you should see that. As this place’s median has drifted from a central grey tribe position to a hard right one, it needs to be occasionally reminded that there is another screen, and not every detractor is secretly in agreement and trying to make you doubt your sanity for criminal purposes.
fuckduck9000
5mo ago
No of course not. As a random european country you just say "no thank you" and wash your hands of the matter. Where's the "being a bad ally" part? People and countries are responsible for their own decisions.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Don’t waste your time defending the idiotic utterances of this troll. He is not on your side.
fuckduck9000
6mo ago
Your theory :
1.) Egypt lets jihadists into gaza
2.) Israel is forced to attack Egypt ?
I think it goes
2.) Gaza turns into ISIS-P
3.) No one gives a shit when israel levels the place
fuckduck9000
11mo ago
What does talking tough have to do with it? I believe murderous rebellion was justified, and this is presumably what you object to. Or do you agree that it was justified, but assume you would have done nothing out of cowardice? Because Lizzardspawn seemed to imply that it was right and proper for germans to die for Hitler, and my suggested course of action would be "traitorous".
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
"by any standard"? It doesn't even qualify under a reasonable standard. The definition usually includes a riot, those are isolated incidents. And those crimes are prosecuted by the state, regardless of the excuses liberal academics offer.
It's just as obnoxious when the ultra-progressive left refers to incidents of white on black violence as 'genocide'. "But it's a little bit like a genocide/pogrom..." . That's not how words work, all animals are not dogs.
As the worst argument in the world goes: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Fine, they’re all monsters. You’re saying your side made a mistake, it should have defected, discount any notion of fairness, ignore the rules, engage in terrorism, street battles, coups, civil war. The last 36 years by comparison were intolerable. Is that your point?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You can take your potential universal saveability and shove it. If it is a crime to think me lesser and wrong, it’s not up to you to judge your beliefs, but to me. Else you should bow down before my assessment of utilitarianism. Its universal saveability is far less conditional. Bentham loves you, man.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Does he want the promiscuous women or not ? It makes sense for him to have a non-promiscuous woman as a wife, just like it makes sense that she should be rich, politically connected etc, but how is that hard-wired ?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
The basics of arguing? Latter half of your comment is bulverism.
OK, granting everything, what can be done? This is personal business, so liberal precepts I adhere to preclude any kind of heavy-handed intervention. Do you want government ads aimed at women imploring them to tamper their expectations, government girlfriends, or what ?
Where are you going with this? I can see here the basis of an ultrareactionary ‘slavery was good, actually. Russian absolutism and lawlessness is the way to go’ take, or a communist ‘capitalistic exploitation is just as bad as the worst examples in history”, I wouldn’t mind reading either, but this is just soft equivocation. What you proably call nuance and complexity, I call a refusal to differentiate. When you condemn all, you condemn none.
Compared to when they did not have ‘nominal’ equality, they’re richer, healthier, more educated, live longer, work less, are protected from arbitrary corporal punishments, incarceration, forced labour, rape. But aside from those, precious few.
More options
Context Copy link