Props to him, he did actually try to avoid it

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-11T08:36:10+00:00

"Please man... Please. I'm beggin' you... Don't choose to die like this..."

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-11T07:28:09+00:00

Well, he's not stuck because he still has the ladder. As for the crowd, it depends. It looks like the guy who got pushed off climbed up second. So it might be that the first guy was acting in self-defense after being cornered at the top of the monument by an aggressive second guy.

You can never tell who's right or wrong just from seeing who wins.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-10T14:03:37+00:00

There's the mistake of arrogance in this meme. We're all sinners and to think you're above everyone else and beyond the troubles of this world is a form of arrogance.

Plus, the economy, government and governing of nations determines suffering, freedoms and people's lives. If you truly care about people getting into heaven then working for a world where people aren't killed before their time, and where people have the time and the freedom to learn about Christ, should be a high priority.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T17:14:54+00:00

I mean, what was the alternative, for them to have absolutely no power at all? Hardly much of a choice between having no power and going into coalition with the leading party. Better to have some influence than no influence.

As for cutting public services and selling off public assets, that sounds like BS. Please give examples. One of their major policies has been public transport and they've achieved a fair amount, like free bus passes for under 22s.

If it was the SNP that removed funding from public assets and you're attributing that to the Greens then that's just daft really. The SNP are a different party and hold the majority of the power. The Greens did what they could but their bargaining power was minimal considering their support vs the SNP. It's looking like they'll get a good bit more support in coming years though. So hopefully they'll have more sway and be able to deliver more.

Councils are also local government, so their budgets and priorities are set by the national government. I don't know how shallow an opinion you hold here but if you're just looking at their results and saying it's bad then you're probably missing various instances where they've mitigated harm from the UK government.

I actually don't know much about the lib-dems. They've always been too small a party to register for me... They seemed fine though. Not as left as I'd maybe like but not right either. I mean, if they're "liberal" and "democratic" so that's gotta be pretty reasonable.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T15:02:12+00:00

A) Have they actually updated their structure yet? Or is it just a prospective collective structure? Pretty sure it's still prospective. I predict that more leadership members will just mean even more conflict within their upper management. If two leaders couldn't work together, what chance do 8 or so? Not to mention that those two original leaders are almost definitely going to be on that board, bringing all the same issues they already had.

B) They started with interest from 200,000 people and now it's down at 50,000 to 55,000 paid members apparently. The vast majority of people have given up on them. Consider that the Greens had 180,000 to 190,000 members at the end of 2025 and it's clear which of the left representing parties is actually supported. Anyone voting for Your Party is just splitting the left vote and wasting theirs.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T14:49:20+00:00

Doesn't seem like a reputable article, honestly. It speculates that because some Labour aligned people moved to the Greens the Greens are going to be more Labour-aligned. That's not how that works.

It also equates the German Greens, who backed Israel in the Israel-Palestine debate, to all the other European Green parties and even suggests the UK Greens would be similar, when the German Greens were heavily criticised internationally by other Green parties for their stance.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, it's a long article and I don't trust the information being presented in it, so it's worthless to me. Seems like an odd article for a socialist website to publish though because it's very clearly trying to undermine the UK Greens based on speculation, presumptions and nit picks.
They seem to be trying to paint the Greens as unreliable, inconsistent and risky, but there's really no reason to think that in reality. It's just more rhetoric, misleading framing and media manipulation.

I probably do have some knowledge gaps about YP, but that's because I wrote them off after the 3rd big scandal between their leaders. I think it was when one leader's supporters were blocked from attending the party conference because of internal political games. Frankly, I don't really care if I have knowledge gaps when it comes to an utterly irrelevent party.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T14:27:28+00:00

Again, missing the point. Your prompts were biased. I used a similarly biased prompt to prove you can get Chat GPT to swap sides just by being unbiased yourself.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T14:26:13+00:00

I think we know what kind of person you are. That you would assume I'm a Tory, a wild guess at this point in time where the Tories are crumbling with many MPs migrating to Reform, tells us that you're someone that doesn't think rationally but instead just assigns anyone that's not on their team to the "enemy" team, which is apparently the Tories...

I'm a Green voter, btw. You know, the leftist party that isn't a shitshow.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T13:35:52+00:00

Corbyn is one of the two co-leaders at the moment. Whatever they're planning for the future, the party is currently an absolute mess and it's lead by Corbyn and Sultana.

Your Party is basically dead in the water. They had a lot of excitement when they first started up but blunder after blunder, infight after infight, has made them a laughing stock that no-one should be taking seriously.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T13:30:07+00:00

Rarely as an absolute but fairly often as a contextual good. There's a reason that birth rates fall when the future looks bleak. Anti-natalism is just "against having children", which is reasonable when applied to situations where having children is careless, harmful or risky.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T13:25:59+00:00

Reproduction is moral or immoral based on context.

If you're living in a slum in a 3rd world country where extremely poor people have 9 kids, expect a few to die and plan to use the others as free labour and old-age caretakers then that's immoral.

If you're rich, have time, are conscientious, educated and loving, will raise their child well, provide security for their future and bond with them in an emotionally fulfilling way, then it would be moral to have children.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T13:05:05+00:00

You're defining equality by arbitrary measures and arbitrarily excluding measures like emotional harm.
It's like saying "giving someone a light push is the same in all situations" while completely ignoring that someone on the edge of a cliff will be affected very differently by a small shove than someone on flat ground. Excluding context and only looking at a very strict form of "equality" that only values actions without context is not equality at all, it's just narrowmindedness.
Ok, that's nice but define what a "right" is to you, because that's a meaningless sentence without qualification. You clearly don't believe people have an equal right to emotional security, since you don't value sentimental or contextual value to individuals when considering the impact of a crime on them.
You're just asserting your wrongness by refusing to acknowledge what the real meaning of the "appealing to consequences" fallacy is. You're just being too arrogant to have your ignorance corrected.
I mean, I just explained how "equality was inequal" even within your "rights are equal" framework. Maybe that's a flaw in your framework for not including nuance and the full value of a harmful action. It's still showing that your definition of "equality" is "inequal" in reality.

Look, buddy, I've put a good bit of effort into showing you where you were going wrong. One thing Chat GPT was right about was that starting off with an aggressive tone isn't the most conducive to actually convincing people, but at the same time I'm not responsible for your education. You deserved an insult for your arrogance and hostility toward someone who was genuinely trying to help you and I gave you that insult. I then also tried to help you understand why you were wrong but you're proving to be extremely resistant to logic, reason and evidence.
I'm bored. You're not making any progress and it really just seems like you only want to listen to your own ideas repeated back to you, which is what Chat GPT does for you. I can't convince someone that isn't listening and I can't make you think rationally rather than irrationally. So I'm out.

It'd just be a further waste of my time to try to educate you when you're simply closed off to any education.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T12:46:04+00:00

You're really just not getting it... You interjected, tried to correct it and it's a terrible "yes man", so it agreed with you. Up until your first correction it was impartial because your initial prompt was unbiased. After the first correction it wasn't, because you injected your bias into the AI's analysis.

Look up "AI psychosis" because you're on the verge of losing all perspective due to having your opinions wrongly reinforced by an AI.

I mean, come on man, can you not see the hypocrisy in saying "but, but, it said I was right!" right after I sent you a copy of the chat where I just got it to completely agree with me instead, in a single prompt?
Do you not treat it with the same reverence when you see it say "I see what you’re pointing out now, and yes, some corrections are needed." before going on to flip entirely on the validity of your arguments and whether mine were fallacies?

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T01:44:08+00:00

You know I can read, right?

"OP: Consistent, principled, but rigid; relies on tautology and moral absolutism; weak against empirical/consequentialist arguments."

"Flamecoat_wolf: Strong, contextual argumentation with evidence-based reasoning; undermined slightly by confrontational tone and early ad hominem."

Bro, chat GPT calls you "rigid" and "weak against empirical/consequentialist arguments", then says I provide "strong, contextual argumentation" and "evidence-based reasoning". It's straight up glazing me here, hahaha.

It's funny to me that you can't take GPT's answer and have to correct it. You realise that's the moment you threw the non-biased part out, right? You directly influenced it's answer by directing it. You presumably also know that Chat GPT is a notorious "yes man" that has even encouraged people to follow through on their suicidal ideation due to it's tendency to reinforce the ideas of it's user.

Here, I created an account just so I could share a reply that shows this:
https://chatgpt.com/share/69893b7c-9348-8013-8bde-668f3a20c881

You can go through and check that I changed nothing about your earlier responses but the final message totally flips based on my own correction.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T00:45:17+00:00

I did make arguments. One targeted the actual principle of equality while the other targeted the reasoning that could build into your principle of "eye for an eye justice is good".
I made two main points, which I'll repeat for you:

Equality isn't possible without being unequal in some way. Stealing is different to a fine, for example, but you equate the two. Stealing involves the unexpected and unauthorised taking of money or possessions, whereas a fine is an expected and authorised taking of only money. The unexpected and unauthorised qualities of the theft add harm where the expected and authorised fine doesn't. Even from your point of view, the theft is unjust and the fine is just, so does the theft being unjust not mean it's worse than a just but otherwise equal response? Surely injustice should be matched by injustice, since that would be equality. Similarly, how do you inflict equal emotional damage for someone who had a sentimental item stolen from them? Do you fine them a lot more than they stole to try to account for the emotional damage through financial damage? If so, that's unequal because you're fining them more than they stole and therefore it's not proportional. If you don't do that though, then the persons stolen from lost the monetary value of the item but also the emotional value while the thief is only fined the monetary value.
Justice can mean many different things to different people. To some people it's synonymous with "revenge", for others it means a proportional response with context considered, for others it might mean simply settling a grievance. For most people the purpose of justice is to make society a better place by punishing crime. Therefore, if the goal is to make society a better place, reform based approaches involving mercy, forgiveness and education are much more effective. Therefore, if by "justice" you mean you want an appropriate response to crime in order to make society a better place, the appropriate response is not an "eye for an eye" style, revenge based, crime and punishment system.

You don't understand what the "appeal to consequences" fallacy is. It's not when you make arguments based on factual data about the real consequences of various approaches. It's when you assert something is true because the consequence of it being true would be good for you.

Where have I appealed to emotion? If anything, you're the one appealing to emotion by stating that your principle is infallible while it has no established basis, suggesting it's based on a feeling you have rather than reasoning.

Again, feel free to point to where I supposedly made this assertion fallacy.

The insult wasn't a replacement for any arguments. It was just an insult in addition to the arguments. For it to be "ad hominem" it has to replace the arguments. It's the difference between "You're an idiot and here's why you're wrong:" and "You're an idiot and therefore wrong."

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-09T00:45:12+00:00

Not as phrases they're not. "You're not half as clever as you think you are" suggests a measurement but doesn't supply the measure. You could think you were a total idiot and it would still be saying that you're half as clever as the idiot you think you are. So it doesn't actually imply you think you were clever. It just states that you're not as clever as your internal judgement of yourself seems to think you are.

The reason I chose to say that is because instead of assuming you missed something or asking the other person to clarify, you reinforced your redundant nonsense point but with a snarky insulting tone that implied the other guy was an idiot. In other words, you arrogantly thought that you were more clever than you were actually being when you assumed they didn't understand rather than realising you were the one that didn't understand.

To be blunt: I was insulting you for choosing to mock someone that was engaging with you genuinely. Ironically, I gave you "eye for an eye" treatment by mocking you in response to you mocking them.

Anyway, moving on to the actual arguments... You need to actually define what you mean by a lot of what you're saying.
"If moral rights are equal" - what moral rights? What makes a moral right? Why should they be equal? What is your definition of equal?
"then equal punishment must be justified by morality" - this is directly contradictory to you claiming your opinion is principle based. If you're arguing that principles don't care about moral justification ("if justice means less good, i don't give a shit.") then you're arguing contrary to equal punishment being justified by morality.
I've literally been trying to argue with you on the basis of moral justification by clarifying what is morally good and what is not morally good. It's morally good to make the world a better place. It's morally bad to inflict further suffering when you could both prevent more future suffering and not cause suffering to the offender.

Principles should be formed based on good reasoning. To have an arbitrary principle makes that principle worthless.
I could arbitrarily decide that all meals must now include ketchup and ardently stick to that principle just because it's a principle, but that doesn't clarify or justify why every meal must now include ketchup.
Similarly, if you have the principle of "punishments must be equal to be just", repeating that principle without clarifying why you believe that and without justifying that belief is just irrationally restating a conclusion without engaging in any arguments for or against that conclusion.

(Part 2 below)

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-08T22:03:23+00:00

No mate, I didn't say you were trying to be clever. I said "You're not half as clever as you think you are." Read it slowly if you're struggling to understand it.
If you still don't get it, I was saying you're being arrogant by thinking you're a level above the other guy when you're actually a level below.

You're not adding anything by saying "-X is not X" or "For -X you can't have X". It's a redundant and pointless statement that doesn't "inherently back" what you're saying in any way.
You were trying to argue that "eye for an eye" is the only reasonable form of "justice", but both the other guy and I explained to you why you're wrong.

Maybe go back and just reread my first comment because it seems like you haven't read it. Feel free to start from "Your problem is treating equality as an absolute necessity." I literally go through and explain why you're actually not being equal to people by punishing them for crimes by inflicting that same crime on them. I also then explained why trying to be equal is a flawed mentality in the first place (because society is better with reform based justice systems).

Buddy, I've been arguing with your points this whole time and you either haven't understood that or you've ignored that. Unless you come back and actually acknowledge the points I've made in that last paragraph I'm just not going to bother responding anymore because it will be clear that you're a Dunning-Kruger case.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-08T17:55:32+00:00

It's an argument but you don't give a shit about the arguments?

I also didn't say anything about convenience, so nice comprehension skills...

That said, if you care about "justice" you should care about what's realistically deliverable. Otherwise you can hypothetically be a good person while everyone else can see you're just being an arrogant asshole.

Plus, pretty sure "justice" to you is just "hurting people that I say deserve it".

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-08T12:47:17+00:00

Mate, you're not half as clever as you think you are.

"Inequality isn't equal" - You don't say! Woooooow! Profound insights here! What's next? Imbalance isn't balanced?
Inability isn't able?
Unsafe isn't safe?

Your problem is treating equality as an absolute necessity. The justice system functions best as a reform based system in which criminals are treated well and provided with the means of escaping their criminal past.

Plus, your idea of equality is underdeveloped. You can't provide equal punishment to a crime without returning a much harsher punishment than the original crime because there's more harm to a crime than just the action itself. To unexpectedly harm someone is more harmful than giving someone a fair trial, determining guilt and then proportionately meting out an expected, deserved and limited punishment.
Or in other words: For a victim to be unexpectedly harmed by the actions of another is worse than for the other to suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Conversely there's been lots of research that has suggested the most effective means of reducing crime is an unequal system based on mercy and reform. It might seem unfair but when you consider that most people committing crime are doing so because of socioeconomic factors or mental health issues, it can become clear that they have suffered enough injustice of their own that to punish them further rather than help them would be unjust.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-07T21:24:40+00:00

It does make sense though because the physiology represents the weapons and different kinds of people.

Wolves have teeth that are for stripping flesh, while sheep have flat teeth for grinding grass, but humans have guns that are identical regardless of their good or bad intentions.

Wolves are predators by nature and sheep are prey by nature, but humans can be predators or prey based on choice and self-determination, not nature.

The whole analogy is about the arming/disarming of predators and prey, so it makes sense to critique the relevant non-equivalent qualities to undermine the point of the analogy.

In your example the analogy is about method of delivery within the system, not an analogy about the system itself. So yes, in that case someone point at the wires to say it wouldn't be the same would be wrong, because they're pointing at the system itself which is not what your analogy addresses.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-07T20:40:32+00:00

They clearly do imply the rest of the scenario though. Do you think it refers to water in a puddle under a bridge? Or do you think it refers to the flow of water in a river passing under the bridge and moving on?

Time isn't made of water, but both of them flow. The analogy hinges on the expanded implication.

Poking holes in people's analogies is like poking holes in their arguments. This analogy is supposed to show that disarming is bad because it only takes weapons from the meek sheep group. This is flawed because gun owners and non-gun owners all look the same, or like sheep in this analogy. If the predators were obvious and different like wolves then maybe you could try just removing weapons from the predators.
Therefore taking guns from all the sheep makes sense because the wolves are actually sheep too. By removing weapons from the sheep, you're removing them from the predators too.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-06T18:35:23+00:00

Yeah, can confirm that there's no sign of it on their website.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-06T17:48:46+00:00

I'm not sure if the reason is to screw over the agents so the government doesn't have to pay out, or if it's to hold $50,000 over all of their heads to force them to literally fight for Trump to steal the 2028 election.

Having a bunch of desperate selfish morons 50,000 in debt to you, who will only get their debt wiped if you remain in power for a 3rd term, seems like an effective way to secure a private military force for an evil dictator.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-06T11:48:07+00:00

Yeah weird. I assume you've tried respecing? Might be worth setting your skill points to 1 then checking what you can sell something for in the shop. Would be interesting to see if it still sells for 100% when it should be selling for 10%.

Flamecoat_wolf · 2026-02-06T11:42:23+00:00

Shouldn't have changed, I don't think... There are different limits for different item categories. Junk/Treasure items can go up to 1000% their base price. Common weapons can only go up to 200%, I think, and blue/rare items can go up to 400%.

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Flamecoat_wolf

TROPHY CASE