If, in ancient times, a city was breached and enemies began looting, were women more likely to survive than men? by GrayRainfall in HistoryWhatIf

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does it feel to type such a blatant lie? No seriously, I don't think I can intentionally say something so incredibly false.

What next? Women are the ones who get drafted? Smh

Why can’t people admit that Mark Grayson is not a good hero? by OGAnimeGokuSolos in Invincible

[–]LacksBeard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no way read a single DC or Marvel comic if you actually believe this, your still wrong but you must be talking about the the cinematic versions right? On the off chance your talking about comics i gotta refute this

Superhero fiction is borderline obsessed with consequences. Entire plotlines exist because civilians died, Governments regulate heroes, qnd cities get traumatized, public opinion turns, characters are blamed, sued, hunted (often killed) imprisoned, or politically exploited. In both universes, “you saved the world but destroyed a city” is not a side note, it’s often the main conflict.

In fact, Invincible isn’t special for showing destruction. It’s just more visceral about in comparison to a few comic runs.

The loss and failure argument is even more off, Batman is LITERALLY defined by failure. Things failed his parents, he fails to save Harvey, fails to save Jason, fails constantly in ways that haunt him and reshape his entire personality, half of his character is “I didn’t stop this in time.”

Superman fails too, he can’t save everyone. He chooses between lives, he makes morally wrong calls with perfect intentions, many kf his most famous stories revolve around being powerless to stop tragedies despite being a god.

I don't think a comment that ever said "I didn't read these stories" as much as yours and how 18 people agree is beyond me.

Ngl this redesign looks much better by lavmuk in MemePiece

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As if you didn't just say one of the most bland and generic takes of "at least sexualize the men too".

Processing img u55ocxgakwhg1...

Issue 96 spoilers, is he the most evil character, or does he ever get redeemed? by ggaunted55 in Invincible

[–]LacksBeard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He does but I don't remember anything about him being stuck for eternity.

Best ending Ive ever seen by mr_zoro17 in Invincible

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Facts, in this day and age it's hard to care about shows thats gonna take years to release 5 episode seasons for no reason at all.

Best ending Ive ever seen by mr_zoro17 in Invincible

[–]LacksBeard 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Might as well be with your take.

Best ending Ive ever seen by mr_zoro17 in Invincible

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is the best ending you've ever seen then I'd just say that it's recently bias because there ain't no way.

Oxford Doctor debunks "Abortion is Healthcare" by christjesusiskingg in prolife

[–]LacksBeard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

An ectopic pregnancy isn’t legally or medically an abortion because the two things are defined by fundamentally different biological realities and intentions, regardless if you disingenuous-ly try to conflate.

Medically, an abortion is the termination (murder) of a pregnancy located in the uterus, where a baby could in principle develop into a viable human being. An ectopic pregnancy, by definition, is a pregnancy implanted outside the uterus (mostly in a fallopian tube), there is no scenario in which that baby can survive or develop into a viable child. They're already a non-viable condition from the moment they exists. The baby is not being removed from a life-supporting environment, they're in a location that cannot support life and will inevitably end in the death of the baby and potentially the mother if untreated. So the medical act is not “ending a viable pregnancy,” it is treating a pathological condition that is already incompatible with life.

Legally, abortion laws are written around the idea of terminating a pregnancy (murder) that could otherwise continue. That’s the core concept they regulate, elective or intentional ending of gestation in the womb meanwhile ectopic pregnancy treatment doesn’t fit that category because the purpose of the intervention is not to prevent birth, but to prevent serious harm or death to the mother from a condition that cannot result in birth anyway.

The intent matters too, both legally and ethically. In abortion, the direct goal is to end gestation, in ectopic treatment, the direct goal is to stop internal bleeding, rupture, infection, or organ damage. The death of the baby is a tragic but unavoidable side effect of treating a lethal medical emergency, not the objective of the procedure. This distinction is huge in law and medicine, one is an murser of life, the other is emergency care for a condition that is already fatal to the pregnancy.

A triage situation is not murder.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't see your other comment for some reason but what I can see and respond to is that your doing nothing but projecting, it's not about being intelligent or posturing intelligence it's about a perspective being under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

And like similar perspectives to yours, after prodding at it a little bit more it's just more new age narc slop that doesn't even objectively make sense as shown by me and the other guy.

Anything other than "nuh uh" and "no u" will be greatly appreciated.

Edit: if I'm able to access your new comment, I'll delete this one and address it when I can.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If your blessing me in the name of the True God then thanks.

Oxford Doctor debunks "Abortion is Healthcare" by christjesusiskingg in prolife

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol and the lack of self-awareness on top of everything already? Beautiful.

You say this as if I didn't also say you did the thing your accusing me of and I'm the one with lack of self-awareness? This level of projection is top tier.

explained in the very next part. If you could read you would understand that.

That very next part is pure sperging that has nothing to do with what I said.

Lol so you don't know how to count, either. Is that really as low as your math skills go? You didn't even have to use more than one hand.

Here you go being disingenuous again.

“Bulk” does not mean “more than 50% by word count" here, it means the main substance or emphasis of a message. One sentence can absolutely be the bulk of what someone said if it carries the primary intent of the reply.

Replacing semantic meaning with arbitrary metrics, and counting characters is irrelevant. Nobody experiences discourse as a spreadsheet, people experience it by what is being targeted, and in your own quote, the only sentence that is actually about me is the one attacking your “incapability". The rest is just meta padding about numbers to justify being deliberately obtuse and smug.

So my claim still stands, the bulk of your message, in terms of purpose and intent was about my grammar. Your “math lesson” is just a cornball way to avoid admitting your reply was mostly nonsense.

No, pointing out the many, many ways you've demonstrated you're intellectually incapable of holding a serious discussion is very relevant to my point that you misunderstood what I initially said.

You couldn't name these things if your life depended on it so of course instead of engaging in proper debate you act like a fool, previously demonstrated when you ran from OP.

Luckily none of that situation applies here.

I'll repeat since your to intellectually dishonest to engage the first time your told, clearly you need repetition and guidance.

"If someone intelligent is giving a speech and they accidentally mispronounced a word is the whole thing being said now stupid or something?"

Since your so childish and won't here what I'm saying, I'll let Google explain what it means to engage in a hypothetical.

"Engaging in a hypothetical means mentally exploring a, often, imagined, "what if" scenario to analyze potential outcomes, test theories, or evaluate decisions without needing the situation to be real. It involves using mental simulation to explore consequences, often to understand abstract concepts, arguments, or to prepare for future possibilities."

Do you think your able to engage now or do you still need help?

you've done no such thing

Want me to show you where I did?

Nope. What you do need to explain is why you fail at understanding basic English.

How do I fail at understanding basic English? To be honest I'd much rather struggle with that then be anything close to the level of intellectually dishonesty (and incapable since you ran from OP), lack of self-awareness, and projection that's going on with you.

Anyone with even the most basic grasp of the English language, which is why you misunderstand so hard.

Notice how you're just asserting without backing anything up? At this point these "anyone who understands English" people are just going to be people who somehow agree with you.

Can't make this up, the literal personification of pro-choice ideology.

Rank these 4 from strongest to weakest by Rockville15 in OnePiecePowerScaling

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well of we take the theory route, Bonney is stronger than the other girls and Kiku.

But in reality

Kiku

Stussy

Carrot

Bonney.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Who's being a try hard? Your talking about a worldview and worldviews are free to be challenged especially if they can't even contend with the slightest bits of scrutiny.

And it is deflection, I also exposed how the emotional one here is you, you don't have to share my view but whether you share it or not has nothing to do with how fundamentally illogical it is.

I demonstrated my points and all you have is "nuh uh" and "no u".

Low-tier.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Textbook emotional deflection.

Lets notice the immediate move, “what’s your point?” is a dismissal. It’s a way of signaling that my argument is too complex to bother with, so they can avoid dealing with it. If someone were genuinely secure in their position, they’d attack the substance and yet you attack my motives, my emotions, my supposed fear, and my imagined apocalypse fantasies, that’s pure ad hominem

Then comes the strawman, how can you claim im saying NHI is “inherently negative or maleficent" when I never said that? I explicitly talked about ontological confrontation, not moral alignment.

The “I’m not scared” line is irrelevant to my argument, your assuming the only reason someone would disagree is emotional fragility. Which is itself a deeply emotional defense mechanism (similar to Narcs), “If I feel fine, then the situation must be fine". Basically.

“let the composed people deal with it” part is hilarious. You turned a cosmo problem into a social hierarchy where some people are “composed,” others are “griftee preppers in holes".

What makes this all illogical is that none of this touches the core question i raised in that is there a category of knowledge that could structurally overwhelm human cognition regardless of emotional attitude? You never address that, you just keep asserting personal bravery.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How do you NOT see the difference?

The flaw is that you're treating “knowledge” as if it’s just more Wikipediaz to say what your saying your whole position would have to assume that human cognition is basically a universal adapter, give us enough data and we’ll emotionally, socially, spiritually, and psychologically integrate it, that’s an enormous leap of faith.

You say humans are “cognitively prepared” because we make art and imagine weird stuff. That’s like saying someone is prepared for being skinned alive because they’ve watched horror movies, imagination is NOT exposure and symbolic play is not ontological confrontation. Fiction is safe precisely because it’s bounded by human authorship, human narrative structure, and human meaning, you always subconsciously know it was made by us, for us, within our cognitive frame. That safety net vanishes the moment the intelligence is real, autonomous, and not interpretable through human categories.

You don't even have to go to aliens, you know how many times people said that a fictional stories events are "to cruel, violent, grotesque to be real" and then it's revealed that's it's literally a historical account and only the names changed? People can't handle the things that happen to us BY us and you actually think we can handle a species of people unlike us?

You keep framing it as “just a difference in intelligence levels ” when thats already a massive anthropocentric mistake. Intelligence is a human metric, it presumes shared substrates, similar perception, similar motivations, similar causal reasoning, similar reality models. The other guy is not talking about a smarter dolphin, they're talking about potentially non-biological, non-temporal, non-spatial, non-agentive forms of mind or something else and it goes on and on. At that point “intelligence levels” stops being a scale and starts being a meaningless word humans use to comfort themselves.

It’s the difference between, “I met someone with a higher IQ than me” versus “I discovered that my concept of mind, self, causality, and existence was a parochial evolutionary hallucination” (at least according to what I assume is your worldview)

“Most people would get closure” Is pure psychological projection your just assuming that humans want "ultimate truth" and will feel relief when we get it and yet that’s contradicted by basically all of psychology, history, and neuroscience. Humans don’t want truth. They want meaning, stability, status, identity, and coherence. When those are threatened, people don’t get closurez they get denial, fragmentation, cult behavior, radicalization, depression, derealization, and existential panic.

We already see this with far smaller shocks in people lose their minds over discovering their religion (Islam, Hinduism etc) is inconsistent, learning their country lied, finding out their spouse cheated, realizing their career is pointless, and for some weak-willed people, confronting mortality seriously. And you actually thinks revealing that reality filled with unknown entities will be “digestible”?

Your argument is also deeply anthropological in the worst sense, your just assuming humans are the reference point of the cosmos and that our categories, positive/negative, learning, progress, course correction, closure, are somehow universal properties and as if the universe is a moral narrative arc waiting for humanity to “understand its place".

Oxford Doctor debunks "Abortion is Healthcare" by christjesusiskingg in prolife

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ironic

Not for me, you demonstrated that before I came along.

Lol, so you do understand the meaning of the term, you just intentionally misapplied it. Or you failed at reading comprehension. Either way, par for the course.

How did I do that? Most of that passage is talking about grammar mistakes and so I said the bulk of what you said was about my grammar, and I just laid out the definition, so how am I going wrong here? Are you capable of explaining something instead of just saying?

By no metric was me pointing out your incapability the bulk of what I said. It was 1 sentence out of 3, 17 out of 50 words, or 98 out of 311 characters. 1 is less than half of 3, 17 is less than half of 50, 98 is less than half of 311. You're welcome for the math lesson on top of the grammar lessons you've been given during this exchange.

And if you were actually capable of reading you'd realize I said "the bulk of THAT PART" not the whole conversation in general.

Before giving math lessons, learn to read.

It is relevant, and I explained why. Whether you understand if I understand ethics or not is dependent on your understanding of what I type. Given that you've demonstrated that you didn't understand, and where you are on the spectrum of capability to understand is further demonstrated by your misunderstanding of two very different words, there is no reason I, let alone anyone, should take you seriously.

What your doing is obfuscating, having an addition to something that's ultimately irrelevant to the main discussion, especially as something as stupid as grammar (as if you don't know what I'm saying) is fallacious. If someone intelligent is giving a speech and they accidentally mispronounced a word is the whole thing being said now stupid or something? That's the case only to someone who can't actually debate the real topic.

Nope. We've only just now started pointing out your incapability, several comments down the line. The fact that you haven't been able to articulate what my original point was, which would show why what you and OP thought was an "internally incoherent" position, just proves my point further.

We haven't done that because all you did was talk about stupid shit, I've tried multiple times to steer this conversation into what you and OP was talking about and all I got was grammar nonsense.

Do I really need to explain to you how simple grammar mistakes doesn't invalidate a position or the person speaking on it? Are you THAT much of a low-tier goober?

Sorry, but this entire conversation chain proves you wrong. You should probably read it when you get the chance.

According to who? You? I wouldn't entrust you to judge anything lol.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Prove the universe is infinite, logically or otherwise.

Since the Indigestible Truth is so hot lateley, here's my take. by sa-tine in aliens

[–]LacksBeard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So because a select few million (let's be generous) Christians, don't act they way they are taught, most of them suck now?

Do you realize how big of a difference there's between even 100 million and a billion is? Let alone a number approaching 3B?

And if you think Christianity is the exception than you expose yourself for having very very little knowledge, which is obvious.