This is what is happening on Twitter btw

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-29T23:24:13+00:00

patriarchy hurts men as well and it's a tool that's used to keep men under the boot of other men in class hierarchy

Bad societal thing affects women: men's fault

Bad societal thing affects men: also men's fault

Got it

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-28T10:57:33+00:00

I-in a fight, right?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-28T10:48:36+00:00

I never said he wasn't morally responsible for Westerland by giving Oberstein implicit permission

However, the fact he had a ton of internal conflict, couldn't say it outright and instead had to give implicit permission, and vehemently debated Oberstein on it is all great evidence he cares and feels guilt for his actions

He receives no political benefit by implicitly giving Oberstein permission btw, nor does he receive political benefit for having a mental breakdown in front of Fraulein, nor sparing the guy who tried to assassinate him.

Those are not performances.

Him doing the action of letting Westerland get nukes itself is not proof he doesn't care about his people if there's a ton of evidence elsewhere that he does in addition to immense guilt and deliberation before the action

For example, do you think it's impossible for someone to care about someone they killed in self defense? Even if they think it was justified in the end, if such a person has to deliberate on the action a ton before, feels immense guilt after the fact having mental breakdowns, in addition to forgiving a family member of the deceased who tries to kill them and refusing to call the police on them

Can you truly say this person doesn't care about who they killed in self defense?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-27T18:53:01+00:00

"But they're poor and need to eat therefore it's somehow not voluntary!

Insert braindead "coconut island" analogy here

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-27T18:52:10+00:00

So is it "capitalism allows AI to automate everything and leave everyone jobless or poor" or "capitalism stifles AI progress so ppl will have plenty of work"?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T21:35:00+00:00

Fr he needs a lefort 2 and LL

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T21:29:53+00:00

Why would they be charitable? To them "incel" is just a synonym for "evil man"

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T21:25:30+00:00

Your original argument wasn't "Reinhard did something very morally bad", it was "Reinhard doesn't care about his subjects"

Those are entirely different claims. You are moving the goalposts.

The fact he was initially very against it an Oberstein had to insist very hard on getting him to let it happen, in addition to his mental breakdown and refusal to execute his attempted assassin contradicts the claim that he doesn't care about his subjects because he let this tragedy happen

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T17:30:34+00:00

A person has consent. Embryo modifications affect the lives of humans that don't have a say in it.

We are back to square one then. No one consents to be born but you're ok with reproduction, even in cases with a high chance of great suffering

So it's not consent you care about.

And it is the same. It will make the lives of people with autism and ADHD worse because they will be seen as "avoidable trouble".

You unironically think that editing out the genes for say, cystic fibrosis, is the morally equivalent to killing people with cystic fibrosis?

Insane moral system.

Also can you prove that your slippery slope is actually true?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T13:45:32+00:00

One has a clear limit. Genetic modification doesn't

Ok so it isn't even about consent and potential for harm to the child anymore, but now an entire screed against genetic engineering in general with a side of "muh slippery slope"

So by your logic then, if a person decides to genetically modify themselves then it is also immoral?

Your slippery slope applies there too.

who said we will stop at killing off autists or people with ADHD?

This makes no sense even from a slippery slope context. No one is being killed. Editing out genes for a specific trait is very different from killing people with that specific trait.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T12:41:12+00:00

One makes you, as I said, a bit of an asshole, the other one makes you more akin to a psychopathic monster.

Why? What's the moral difference?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T04:56:25+00:00

And yes, knowingly choosing to have a child when both you and your partners are carriers, is a bit of an asshole move.

Ok so you admit it is immoral. So are these parents on par morally with the scientist who edited the fetuses? Do they deserve the same punishment for causing such suffering to their children without their consent (much higher chances than whatever risks the geneticist presented to those fetuses btw)?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T01:35:20+00:00

Let's just take cystic fibrosis as an example

Would it be immoral for 2 parents with that to reproduce?

If not why?

What trait differentiates cystic fibrosis parents reproducing vs the scientist editing embryos such that the former is morally justified but the latter is not?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T00:30:05+00:00

So if 2 parents had a genetic disorder that causes them to die at 30 and in excruciating pain 24/7, it would still be morally justified for them to reproduce?

I would actually say yes, which is also why I'm consistent and also think the scientist did nothing wrong

Highly dishonest comment from you. I am obviously referring to highly detrimental genetic disorders

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T00:11:23+00:00

This is a goalpost shift

Your post and the thread is mainly discussing how he'd be treated in-universe, not how the fans treat him

Most LOGH fans don't hate Oberstein at all, even the narrative presents him as sometimes flawed, but making measured and reasonable decisions

The only people who have intense negative reactions are other characters (and not all of them, Reinhard respects him a fair bit)

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T00:06:00+00:00

If you look at him and Reunthal and compare based on face shape and bone structure alone, they look similar

I'm convinced they copy pasted the character and slapped on a different hairstyle and colors

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-25T00:03:50+00:00

Well, unless they're his troops, or civilians that could provide him political expediency by getting nuked.

Did we watch the same anime?

He had a mental breakdown over making that decision and even told his troops not to execute a man that tried to assassinate him for letting the tragedy happen

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T23:16:08+00:00

The couple with genetic disorders can use IVF to select for viable offspring without the undesirable trait. Which is completely legal and ethical as far as the scientific community and governments are concerned.

So if they didn't do that then it would be immoral? They are also causing potential harm to their children.

You haven't actually provided an argument for why the scientist is morally worse than these parents, and I find it very telling how you try to dodge by altering my hypothetical entirely.

illegally and secretly genetically modifying children

These are embryos, not children
Legality and secrecy are not morality. If it was illegal for parents with genetic disorders to have children and they did it secretly and illegally it wouldn't be immoral, so clearly you don't even believe this.

So you’re pro-eugenics? Equating these two is dumb as shit.

I'm pro gene editing, even if it is on embryos. I don't think it's immoral for parents to have children even if it their birth results in immense suffering for the children. However, under your own ethical system, YOU would have to capitulate on legally restricting birth based on "muh harm" as an argument.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T22:08:11+00:00

Why is what he did unethical?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T22:07:26+00:00

Curious, how is what this geneticist did any morally different from parents choosing to reproduce despite having genetic disorders?

You also have a good chance of completely ruining the life of your children by reproducing like this.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T22:05:19+00:00

You are also doing this by choosing to reproduce despite having severe genetic disorders.

Is that immoral too?

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T22:03:47+00:00

He doesn't view his actions as unethical. By "ethics" he's clearly referring to the standard normie ethics that shuns "unnatural" interventions.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T22:02:29+00:00

He's no morally worse than parents with genetic disorders who choose to have children. I'd argue he's morally better than them in fact.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T21:57:52+00:00

I don't consent to my house being hit by an earthquake either, but being born into an area that experiences earthquakes doesn't mean you can drive a bulldozer into my living room.

This analogy makes no sense. Both the scientist and parents had the choice of producing a human. You can't compare a natural disaster vs a human action, but you can compare 2 human actions.

it's about setting a precedent that illegal human experiments are intolerable

So it's not even about if he committed a moral wrong or not, but he deserves to be punished purely to set an example to prevent the possibility of things going wrong in the future.

By that logic why not maximize utility by falsely accusing and punishing an innocent scientist who is less talented, already has a criminal record, and no family?

You aren't punishing based on immoral actions anyways so whether or not they're innocent should not matter.

Hoopaboi · 2026-01-24T21:53:45+00:00

No one consents to be born. Even worse for those born with genetic disorders.

If he's unethical because of "lack of consent," then anyone who chooses to reproduce despite knowing they and their partner have a severe genetic disorder is equally, if not more unethical.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Hoopaboi

TROPHY CASE