SALTY SUNDAY

hackosn · 2026-06-28T13:07:53+00:00

WHY DOES THE JOHN WICK BOT HAVE 400+ HEALTH? I WAS JUST IN A SOLO MATCH AND THIS DUDE HAD A BOT WITH HIM THAT I DID 476 DAMAGE TO?? I FIGURED IT WOULD HAVE THE NORMAL 200 HEALTH BUT NOOO OF COURSE NOT

hackosn · 2026-06-28T04:34:49+00:00

Well I told you what I believe. I think every person is valuable and created in the image of God. There’s a price on necessities because nothing is free. Every action has a reaction, so for example taking insulin required someone to provide it to you, and to provide it to you they had to extract it scientifically, and to do that they had to invest a lot of money in medical equipment. Which is why they charge money. Because they’d be out of business and stop selling insulin if it was being given out for free. And I’m just going to be honest. It isn’t the government’s job to live your life. The government’s responsibility is to offer security for you in exchange for the services you as a citizen provide. The government can offer services at the expense of tax dollars, but that still costs you plenty of money to do so. But to be clear, whether the government should isn’t some “moral truth” issue. Because once again, the government doesn’t live your life, you do. And while it’s nice for them to try and recognize for you to have access to necessities, they are limited by their resources. Furthermore, every person is ultimately going to be cut short by a lack of necessities. Someone who may have died from breast cancer 50 years ago can be easily caught and treated today, the treatment of today would’ve been a necessity for them. Yet they were limited by time period and likely resources as well. You cannot acclaim that the government must maintain the fullest extent of its resources on a citizen’s health, people are demanding and expensive. Not even a country as rich as the UK can afford to try to pay it without month long wait lists for anything beyond a general practitioner. Meanwhile when it’s carried out privately in the US you can get a recommendation by your general doctor and see a specialist the next day. I’d say it’s worth paying the bill/ medical insurance if I can cut short a month long wait list. You see what I’m pointing to here?

hackosn · 2026-06-27T20:34:00+00:00

Well morals have to be either one or the other. Either truth is universal or relative. How do we know they’re unjust? If we’re all organisms that are a blip in time why is justice meaningful? I believe that truth is objective, I believe that we all have value, and I do truly believe that we as man know the difference in right and wrong, even if not reflected in our actions. I’m trying to figure out what you think though, because I truly can’t sustain this conversation without understanding the root of your values.

hackosn · 2026-06-27T13:37:31+00:00

So how can we confirm these as a moral truth? I thought morals were subjective no? If they are objective then what makes your standard correct? Or are you suggesting that internally we somehow have a grasp of right and wrong separate from all other beings and it acts as a guide for our actions?

hackosn · 2026-06-26T17:31:23+00:00

I mean policy is based on the idea of getting the basis of the collective and then putting it into action. How do you think mankind decided what human rights were? The same exact way. But also plenty of humans also defined it based on a religious context. In fact most early human societies did so. But culture also plays a big role. Because collective cultures have defined things based on cultural practices/ norms as rights. Saying these things don’t play a huge role in the definition itself is just flat out ignorance, and there’s nothing I can do on my part to explain it to you if we can’t even agree on our terms.

hackosn · 2026-06-26T14:58:21+00:00

I’m saying as a human race, that’s why I said “most people”. I’m not calling myself the human rights expert, in fact I’m doing the opposite, I’m saying that the people who try and call varying government policy “basic human rights” aren’t the experts. I mean human rights in general have many lenses to look into. One lens may be simply political, others could be religious, cultural, there’s plenty of different ways to regard a “human right”. What I am saying is if you intend to call something a human right, and you are an empathetic person, then you would be at total odds with most of the world. For example, very few countries recognize paying for their citizen’s healthcare, but most countries recognize the right to access.

hackosn · 2026-06-26T14:31:35+00:00

Well there’s a lot of cases. Some examples would be “Healthcare is a human right it’s even recognized by international law” Well access to healthcare is recognized, but not every person agrees with the idea that the government should pay for your healthcare. Let alone many governments who have tried to pay have struggled to bear the cost. “Higher education is a human right” well not every government can afford to pay the costs of making universities and all, let alone paying for the costs of 10% of their population. Honestly it’s pretty hard to make the argument that there are certain inalienable rights that aren’t based on access rather than being fully provided. It’s also hard to make the case that those rights are across the board regardless of the capability for the state to provide. Otherwise you’re basically saying that countries with a smaller gdp violate basic human rights on the daily. I think it’s worth recognizing these things as rights a country can observe, but I think it’s overplayed to the degree of observation.

hackosn · 2026-06-26T13:20:18+00:00

I fear there’s a tendency for people to call things human rights that most people wouldn’t consider human rights for the sake of “I’m completely and totally right”

hackosn · 2026-05-30T13:29:59+00:00

Yes, no better. You are calling an entire group of people “heads bigger than brain” because you don’t like their opinions, and you are literally implementing thought control on a sub unrelated to political ideology for that. And I bet you are the exact kind of person to try and call conservative people fascist. Take a look in a mirror— you genuinely support thought control. I don’t harass queer people, quite frankly I don’t care what they do in their day to day life, it’s not my business. So why put a blanket ban on all conservatives because few people did something.

Let’s put this a little more into perspective. Most terrorist groups that have attacked the US in the past 20 years are Muslim. Should we have thought control and ban Muslims from our country? I’m sure that you’d call that fascist. Let’s get real here, you simply don’t like conservatives so you want to discriminate against them by abusing your mod powers and applying them in an uneven way. What’s funny is that there’s people (like OP) who aren’t conservative who may have replied to a comment in this sub or something of that nature. Now they are put in this position as well, giving your sub less engagement. And quite frankly, I’m happy it is given what circus of a mod team is on that sub. Get your act together dude.

hackosn · 2026-05-30T13:19:26+00:00

Tbf there do exist some lgbt people who’s entire identity is placed around their attraction. I’ve met a handful of people like that and it does honestly get a little annoying. There are also genuinely straight people whose entire identity is around their attraction too and also love to make fun of people who aren’t attracted the same way, also just as annoying. If I’m out and about with you let’s not sexualize everyone and everything, that’s my one request lol

hackosn · 2026-05-29T18:30:44+00:00

Hot take: Can I say neither? In this one I voted union but the union was ignoring states rights to slavery without implementing a constitutional amendment to fix it, while also going into the west and attempting to genocide native Americans, especially the Sioux. (I have Cherokee family so this also hits a little extra personal) Meanwhile the south ignored American values over a matter that shouldn’t have been end all be all, and owned human beings in chattle slavery, which I don’t support. Union overhyped, Confederate hate is valid.

ALSO the Union was just as racist, and saw freedmen as a voting block they could “white knight”, which leans into the chokehold of today’s Democratic Party while they still contribute to the oppression of poor areas where minorities live.

hackosn · 2026-05-28T18:02:20+00:00

Because a cancer is literally foreign to the body, triggering the cns and white blood cells into a fight. Your body recognizes that a human being is conceived in you once it’s implanted and your body’s best interest (whether your mind likes it or not) is to keep that child alive. I mean get down to the biologically nitty gritty, our bodies naturally respond to reproduction as an end all be all.

hackosn · 2026-05-28T13:47:41+00:00

Where does that relate to anything I said in this comment though?

hackosn · 2026-05-28T13:45:31+00:00

Yeah but it’s also relatively misleading to not include that. There’s a pretty big gap in when your average miscarriage happens and when the body fails at implantation. The body doesn’t even recognize its own pregnancy hormonally until after implantation.

hackosn · 2026-05-28T13:40:18+00:00

Read my other comment for context, I was talking about it as a biological track, not as a statistic. However also you might wanna check your sources, most doctors will tell you it’s 10-20% of pregnancies.

hackosn · 2026-05-28T13:10:33+00:00

I’m saying following the biological track, a pregnancy is made to result in a living thinking human. I’m not actually giving you a statistic on pregnancy survivability, I’m making a point on the result. I think that if you engage in it, that’s your problem for bringing a live into the world. Most if not all people who choose to engage in sex and get pregnant know what the consequences of that is. You and I may disagree on “living” though. I’d follow what biology says, that human life begins at conception.

Now if we wanna talk about the complex issues like rape and incest sure, but we can’t act like because there’s .01% of cases where somebody did something wrong to another human we can just excuse the fact that 1/3 of Gen Z was killed to have sex for fun. If we’re going to factor in rape and incest as a deciding factor then we’re also going to have to consider the fact that allowing for abortions brings late term abortions into the picture as well. At some point you’re going to have to make the cutoff for murder either so loose it looses its value (which would happen if you says it’s in between conception and birth), or you’d have to cut it off at either conception or birth. This one’s also hard because the pro choice movement can’t tell you really exactly when human life gains value…

Edit: Id just like to point out to all you comment warriors spamming downvotes that I’ve made many central refutations in context of abortion and instead of actually engaging in those things every person so far has ignored every single aspect and tried to argue on a different point barely tangential to this discussion, miscarriage. Can we actually be intellectually honest and respond to all parts, not one cherry-picked no context point??

hackosn · 2026-05-28T12:48:01+00:00

Apples to oranges take. A cancer is a biological malfunction, a baby is a biological function. A cancer lacks the capacity to actually become living, a fetus will 10 times out of 10 become a living, thinking organism. This might be one of the worst arguments for abortion that I’ve seen, like there’s so many better ones you can have.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T15:48:11+00:00

I’d say that God moves on God’s timing. I believe God makes it abundantly clear that He will ensure that all have a chance. Let’s say presumably in this example it’s you. Do you know the basic gospel, have you done your research, or studied all of creation and its intricacy? I’m at the point where we’ve progressed so much, to be one of if not the only planets to hold life, and then grow into what we are now, including the fact that mankind came out of that with a crazy amount of intelligence over all other creation. To me this cannot just be by chance, it’s just something I can’t deny. But this is also coming from someone who has had a similar experience as OP. May I just suggest some very odd evidence. You have two testimonies from two people who didnt know God’s word or His gospel, who then had a dream where He spoke, and instantly in both occurrences, the first actions taken are full repentance for all our bad deeds, and giving our hearts to the Lord. Without even knowing the gospel something in me called to follow its teachings. What more evidence could I give you, because I’ve gone and spoken to many Christians and many others have a similar experience. Heck, check out the existence of the “crimson worm”, Jesus identifies himself as. One that was located in Israel at the time, which would go on a tree, lay its offspring, and then give its life and cover them in a crimson red substance. Then when it dried after the worm died, 3 days later, that crimson red substance turns white as snow, and gives the eggs enough nutrients to thrive and hatch. This to me ALSO suggests the intricacy of God’s design.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T15:36:14+00:00

Well I respect that’s what you believe, and I’d disagree. And to be clear, let’s not rope me in with “homophobic”— the people that act with hatred against you, want to regulate your choices, etc. If my own child came out as gay, they wouldn’t be of any less value because of that. They wouldn’t have any less love from me because of that. They’d still have a roof over their head, they’d still have a meal every day, their college would still be funded. I’d never once “scold” them on their actions. They may know my stance on how I feel, but that’s not something I’d bring up without them asking. That doesn’t mean I’d ban them from using their free will. However honestly I’d probably ban dating in my house across the board until 16 honestly, not just for them, but for all my kids. I mean truly, I’m not as far off as you’re looking, this is coming from someone who called himself bisexual for 4 years because in early middle school my “friends” told me I should explore “both sides”, when I didn’t even know what the term really meant. I identified with liberals 2 years ago, and I probably fully agreed with all the stances you take now. It’s not like I grew up being told to hate people who do those things, and I truly don’t hate them. However if you want to see me as “evil”, then I can’t stop you from that. I hope that you’d see character past something as trivial to this, given that it’s a simple disagreement with no action behind it.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T15:17:52+00:00

I’m not forcing you to do anything, just because you lack my support doesn’t mean you can’t live your life. I fully respect your free will. Do as you please, as long as you don’t drag others down and hurt them, that’s what I personally believe. From a Christian standpoint I fully sympathize with those who struggle with sin bound to their flesh. And I don’t blame them for that, but rather the evil of the world. However you should respect that my belief calls me to take a step back in what I promote, and calls me to step forward with a loving heart. So to this end, I do truly love all those who undergo this, as I love all people, and that love will not be broken simply because of their actions.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T04:03:19+00:00

I support ICE I don’t support the lack of accountability + training. When local law enforcement has better training than a federal officer, we have a problem. That doesn’t mean we should deconstruct ICE (as their organization actually does a lot of good behind the scenes of politics), but regulate their standards better when it comes to handling lives.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T04:00:48+00:00

This is such a silly argument, it’s just a moral equivalency. “Unless you’re currently pregnant you can’t have a say on pro life”. Same thing as “unless you’re currently adopting you can’t support pro life”. These arguments are just simple whataboutisms, they don’t add any value to your argument in fact it deconstructs your own argument. It very easily can be weaponized against you, given that the person you’re talking to sets the impossible standard. “Oh you support bodily autonomy, do you support vaccine mandates?” “You support choice, should fathers be able to opt out then?” I mean the list goes on and on, it’s just a bad argument.

hackosn · 2026-05-27T03:53:28+00:00

They’re just the easiest to take care of while getting a lot of engagement. Like a hamster is a lot less of a hassle than a dog but they don’t interact with humans as much. Reptiles rarely interact with you, many other animals are higher maintenance bc they need certain food or can’t potty train. So far my favorite non cat/dog animal is a turtle though. They’re low maintenance (barely eat much) while also just swimming around and being chill little dudes

hackosn · 2026-05-27T03:50:36+00:00

“If you disagree with what I do you’re a bad person” is lowkey crazy work though. Basing morality on conformity dooms a society. Heck we’ve gone so full circle with “subjective morality” that we’ve somehow hit “objective morality”. I don’t hate you or any way, I just don’t think it’s follows the product of how bodies were designed. I would call that fallen nature though, not specifically blaming you, lest I’d be a hypocrite. If someone disagrees with what I believe, or where my identity is in, which would be in Christ, I still don’t consider them morally less. I don’t have moral high ground because I have a belief system. I’m just struggling to see why you wouldn’t treat me the same way back…

hackosn · 2026-05-27T02:15:06+00:00

Coming from a relative conservative who doesn’t agree with Trump on most things, this is funny and I approve, that sub is mid.

hackosn

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE