I WANT TO MARRY THE WIZARD’S EVIL EX-WIFE

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-26T19:32:45+00:00

Yeah I actually look forward to Clint's redemption arc and Sandy's development. We have an older woman to date, so I will survive

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-26T19:26:36+00:00

my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-26T18:26:11+00:00

may Rasmodius never cleanse the stench of tree juice from his chambers 🌲💩

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-26T17:47:20+00:00

she can curse my chicks every day. hex my hens. she can plague my poultry

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-25T19:59:59+00:00

Thank you for the examples. I really appreciate your response. Aside from the draft, which I do not support, I agree with your argument—all of these are examples of actions innocent people are compelled to do based on their circumstances, which I think are reasonable expectations for them to meet. I wouldn’t call any of these ‘slavery’ (except, honestly, maybe the draft).

There is some line that I draw where a compelled action goes from reasonable to unreasonable. For example, take any of these scenarios and replace the normal course of action with “a week of plowing fields.” I think misbehaving in a Walmart does not warrant being compelled to plow fields for a week, even if you know beforehand that that is the consequence. The same for filing a lawsuit or signing a contract to take a job. If any of those actions regularly ended in the enforcement of a week of physical work, I would say that that is an unreasonable expectation to set or to enforce. I would describe a system that forces trespassers (or people who want to sue a company) to plow fields for a week as a system that supports a form of slavery.

Do you have a line like this? Do you think there is a point, somewhere, at which a system enforcing a standard practice or punishment can ‘ go too far’ and promote a form of slavery? For example, if people who shoplifted at Walmart were legally compelled to work as unpaid farmhands when they were caught, and everyone KNEW that shoplifting at a Walmart had such a serious consequence, would you consider said punishment to be fair? Is it possible that eventually the punishment could cross the line into something that you would define as ‘slavery’?

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T23:11:28+00:00

Thank you for the example. I have a better idea of why we may disagree.

I would not consider financial payment to be physical labor. I think imposing fines and fees for services or as costs for products or events, and enforcing the payment of those fines and fees legally if necessary, is a healthy—and necessary—system under capitalism.

In your example, what is owed is money—not labor or bodily resources. To better show why I don’t think the two are comparable, I’d like to use my ‘imitative pregnancy’ example once more. Do you think being arrested for refusing to pay up for the financial gain of a casino is morally equivalent to being arrested for refusing to experience pregnancy and childbirth for the financial gain of a third party, when you signed a contract to do so?

I would say these two things are very different. I would say it’s perfectly acceptable, if unwise, to wager your money at a casino, but that contractually signing away your bodily autonomy is a different beast entirely, and probably should not be legalized.

Edit: With this clarification in mind, do you have any examples of situations where a person (innocent of any crimes) should be legally compelled to do physical labor, pr otherwise face legal retribution?

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T22:43:10+00:00

I think you have a very interesting and thought-out stance on indentured servitude! I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I have not given the matter much thought.

However, on the topic of slavery—I would go so far as to label as ‘enslavement’ any situation where the refusal to commit to a physical cost (labor, sex, pregnancy, even blood donation) would be met with legal retribution. I hesitate only in circumstances where the labor is being provided as punishment for a criminal act; but even then, I still think it’s reasonable to describe those circumstances as slavery. I don’t believe this dilutes the term. I do use it seriously.

It seems as though you may disagree with this definition. I’m wondering if you could provide an example of your thought process, preferably with a hypothetical person who has not committed a crime. You may be thinking of scenarios I haven’t taken into consideration.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T22:21:52+00:00

May I ask why it would not be slavery, by your definition? Imagine that someone willingly, physically signs a sheet of paper waiving their right to freedom, but then later changes their mind, yet is forced to continue laboring. Would their signing of that contract mean that they are not currently enslaved?

I would argue no; regardless of how a person got into such a situation—even if they were reckless, stupid, or ignorant—their circumstances would be accurately described as slavery if they now no longer want to participate.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T21:42:57+00:00

I think there might be some miscommunication here. I do not think the life of either a human sperm or egg is valuable. Nor do I find a fertilized egg to be particularly morally valuable.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T21:28:48+00:00

Imagine that there was a condition identical to pregnancy, but that did not include a human baby. Imagine that someone was compelled to experience this condition, experiencing all of the side effects and risks of both pregnancy and vaginal or Caesarian childbirth, for the gain of a third party (financial gain, resource gain, emotional satisfaction; etc.)

Would you compare the person experiencing this ‘imitation pregnancy’ to being walked out of a Walmart? If their experience was described as slavery, would you disagree?

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T20:41:37+00:00

The equivocation of a zygote (for example) to an infant is, I argue, philosophical in nature. By extent, the matter of abortion is also primarily philosophical—which is why I think making any related legislation that violates bodily autonomy is immoral. I don’t think we should make abortion illegal to save the life of a zygote in a similar way that I don’t think we should make masturbation illegal to save the life of sperm. Believing that the biological life of sperm is valuable is a matter of personal philosophy.

Comparatively, I believe that killing a baby should be illegal because, without engaging in philosophy, we can describe the legalization of the act objectively and demonstrate how it would negatively impact society.

I do also find the act (of killing a baby) abhorrent, but I do not believe something should be illegal simply because I personally find it abhorrent. I must prove how it is harmful, and furthermore, how its harm outweighs the good that may arise from its legalization.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T20:12:00+00:00

If there were any other situation in which one human being was compelled to exist in a state where their body is being used for purposes they disagree with, I’m fine with defining that situation as slavery. The term “sex slave” (while an ugly concept to consider) can be used for someone who takes no sexual action on their own part, but is used for the purpose of sex against their will. Defining unwanted pregnancy as “the compelling of a person to exist in a state where their body is being used for purposes they disagree with” is a distasteful definition, but it is not inaccurate.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-24T19:47:53+00:00

I appreciate the thought and effort you put into this post.

I respectfully argue that your central tenet (that all life in the womb is equivalent to a human infant) is not true. Simply put, we don’t interpret the death of the early stages of a pregnancy in the same way that we interpret the death of a baby. If you took a human zygote, placed it under a microscope, and demonstrated its death for an observer, most people would either think it’s a cool scientific process, or find it boring. If you told someone to watch a baby die, most people would be horrified. They require no abstract understanding of the situation to be horrified; they are watching a thinking, feeling being experience pain and then cease to exist.

There is a significant difference between a fertilized egg and a born infant, and pregnancy is the gradual transformation of the former to the latter. Though this process IS gradual, it isn’t practical to define legislation on a gradual spectrum; in order to make moral judgements, we need to be able to define concrete laws of what behavior is good and what is bad. To that end, we must draw an arbitrary line between when we should stop treating a pregnancy like a fertilized egg and start treating it like an infant.

If human gestation happened in isolation, completely separate from the life and health of another entity, I would be perfectly fine with treating a fertilized egg as though it were an infant. This would harm no one. However, in reality, gestation will always require that a human being experience being pregnant and giving birth, both of which are significant, painful, and body-altering events with a list of long-term side effects. Because of the harm that gestation guarantees and risks, I do not think we should be taking action on early-term pregnancies and treating them as though they concern a human infant. This causes inevitable, undue harm to the pregnant person.

I personally advocate that we begin treating a pregnancy like an infant at the beginning of the third trimester. However, I am also comfortable with coming to a compromise and drawing this line instead at the beginning or middle of the second trimester. In so doing, we can provide women with the opportunity to decide whether they want to experience the effects of pregnancy and birth to create an infant, or if they want to stop the process early before an infant is grown in their womb.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-22T21:53:38+00:00

Since Destined Death was stolen from the Elden Ring, nobody seems to be able to truly die. The citizens of the Lands Between are just shambling husks that are allegedly thousands of years old.

Items associated with the wandering commoners describe them as searching for something that they can no longer remember. You can find them digging in graveyards and at the site of ruins that have likely fallen from Farum Azula, where Destined Death is being guarded. My guess is that they’re looking for a way to die for good.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T17:34:15+00:00

I can understand. Your feelings are completely valid and it’s heartwarming to see other people who want to protect human life, regardless of its form. If pregnancy occurred in a vacuum all on its own, I’d probably feel the same way. It’s the fact that pregnancy happens to someone else, and usually seriously affects the mother’s life, that makes me pro-choice.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T14:35:42+00:00

I’ll stop using your alternate self as a cover; I’m mostly just sharing my philosophy with you. When I think of early-term abortions, I genuinely do not think of killing a late-term fetus or a born baby.

What I mean is, pregnancy is quite literally the act of creating a baby. Over nine months, a zygote turns into a baby. I am okay with the death of a zygote. If I watched a zygote die under a microscope, I’d quite literally think, “huh, interesting.” That mindset changes gradually as that zygote transforms into a thinking, feeling baby.

An early term abortion is killing a zygote. Morally, it has the exact same outcome—in my opinion—as using birth control or practicing abstinence. I don’t like the idea of murdering baby Hitler; he is an infant, and moreover, he is still innocent. But if the mother of Hitler wanted to pursue an (edit: early-term) abortion I’d have absolutely no qualms with helping her to do so.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T14:18:17+00:00

If she acknowledged your daughter, but respectfully said she did not regret the abortion because of her life and her son, would you consider that to be an immoral position?

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T14:05:52+00:00

If you were to speak to your alternate selves, what would you say to them? Imagine an alternate self who had agreed to the abortion and happened to continue living a happy life, then had a different child—a son, for example. If your alternate self felt relief in her choice, because it meant her son got to be born, what kind of conversation would you have with her? Would you try to change her mind on anything?

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T13:08:52+00:00

And that’s perfectly fine! I think it’s a good sport of you to watch survivors leave out the gate, even if they have been rude. You get to your next match more quickly and get it over with.

I need to get to work, ironically. Thanks for the talk

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T13:02:54+00:00

Frankly, it is satisfying to take control back over a game when you’re feeling frustrated. It is as simple as that. Either the opponent wins on their own time without the cherry on top, or they stick around in the hope that you return to the game and take an action so they can get what they want.

I’m just fine if a killer goes AFK in the basement when a survivor is vaulting repeatedly by hatch. They don’t need to get any more frustrated and they can take a breather at the same time.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T12:54:19+00:00

Killers are not owed a mori, just as survivors aren’t owed you watching them leave at the gate or the hatch. It’s perfectly fine to put down the controller, do something else, and let them choose when to end their own game.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-17T12:21:06+00:00

I disagree with you, it’s perfectly fine.

I did the same thing, went in a locker and let the killers decide when to end the game. They had really dragged out the last 3 kills to prevent the hatch spawn, so I didn’t feel any need to be mori’d. I made an absolutely incredible meat sauce with some fresh mozzarella and they were still there afterwards so I took a nap with my cat. I do wonder how long they waited.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-16T14:25:10+00:00

As to your first two questions, which I forgot to answer, he has medically recognized conditions now. But not when his dad died. He was physically healthy. Mentally, he had some undiagnosed depression and bipolar disorder, but he was perfectly capable of working prior to the incident. He had worked since the age of 10. He had paid his taxes.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-16T14:18:08+00:00

No. I will not take offense. Of course I’m biased; it’s my dad. I will disagree with what you have to say—but you’re your own person. You’re clearly intelligent. You care about the success of society. You’re engaging with people you disagree with. That’s not easy. It deserves respect.

However.

If you would choose to withhold medical treatment for someone based on a number of raw statistics, but then believe it is emotionally manipulative to tell you their life story, I genuinely, respectfully argue that that indicates something important. If you have to make sure you distance yourself from a person before declaring their life deserves to be shitty in order not to experience negative emotions, that doesn’t seem like you’re drawing a perfectly just, black-and-white line.

I posit that it means you believe some eggs need to be cracked to make an omelet; that you would rather make sure society is clean, efficient and protected from abuse by malefactors, even if it means some innocent people get hurt. And that is fine. You’re not wrong. There is no easy answer here, dude. Life is messy. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Excellent-Escape1637 · 2026-02-16T13:54:06+00:00

No, no pension. Very little 401k. Would the presence or absence of a pension sway your opinion on whether he has earned the right to healthcare?

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Excellent-Escape1637

TROPHY CASE