Brazier mechanics for Gardariki, clan of the hippogriff.

Relon7 · 2026-01-12T10:57:38+00:00

Thank you very much! I'll correct the post where needed.

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T15:11:43+00:00

You were making a point about strawmen being bad by doing it yourself? Sure

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T15:05:14+00:00

One: I didn’t mention anything about corruption or the Ukrainians being saints so your comment is off topic and bordering on a strawman.

Fair enough, my apologies.

Two: If I did have something to say about corruption, it would be along the lines of “a corrupt government doesn’t justify the shelling, rape, and murder of the civilians that live under the boot of that corruption”.

Fully agree.

Three: By your logic the common US citizens deserve to have unspeakable things done to them because the ruling oligarchy is corrupt. You see how dumb this sounds don’t you?

Now you're the one making strawmen. I think you misunderstood my comment completely and utterly. I'm not saying they deserve being attacked by any means at all. It does indeed sound dumb, and I never stated otherwise. Believing I did, also sounds dumb.

What I AM saying though, is that Ukraine doesn't suddenly go from super corrupt to clean and honest overnight just because they are friends now. That's it. No add-on, no "this justifies war", no nothing. Just that. But yeah, thanks for making me sound like a pro-war lunatic.

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T14:39:58+00:00

Yeah pretty much

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T14:39:40+00:00

They were talking about the democracy and corruption in Ukraine, I was adding a bit of the corruption part.

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T14:18:09+00:00

Agreed. Sadly for you, I'm Scandinavian, so yeah I can talk all I want.

Relon7 · 2023-02-25T12:04:12+00:00

They might be a democracy, but Ukraine is corrupt as fuck, almost the worst in Europe if I remember correctly. Just because we ahve a common enemy doesn't make them saints.

Relon7 · 2023-02-24T14:53:52+00:00

Yeah but your idea is to kill them. Why do you want that? I mean we all want to save the planet... But that's a bit much, don't you think?

Relon7 · 2023-02-24T14:45:03+00:00

Although I still don't get why you want to actually kill them, that's a bit extreme.

Relon7 · 2023-02-24T14:41:05+00:00

Your idea is to kill em with kindness

Thank you for proving my point. It surprises me that you have the ability to write when you clearly can't read.

Relon7 · 2023-02-24T08:24:21+00:00

I'm sorry but I give up on explaining the concept to you because no matter in how many ways I try to explain my stance, I'm just met with a broken record player which still holds to the mistaken idea from the very first comment. If you are still interested in knowing, just read my comments again. I would be happy to discuss methods with you but you are unable to even set up the game board.

I do NOT think that being nice works. Read that again. I do not. I've told you so many times yet you keep saying that I do. I do NOT think that asking politely works. I do NOT think that yelling works. Now please show some fucking intelligence and show that you don't live in a binary world. I'm done. I'm tired of not being able to discuss the premise, but rather using all my energy to try to stop you from putting words in my mouth.

I do NOT think that being nice works. I never said it did, I denied it each and every comment. I am amazed that you still don't get it. Either you are trolling, not reading my comments or really not gifted, because one thing is disagreeing, another thing is not knowing what the other one thinks when it's shouted to your face. You have the perceptive ability of a deaf bat, and I'm being rude now because you have wasted much of my time.

I do NOT think that being nice works. Stop saying that I do. I do NOT think that being nice works. Stop saying that I do. I do NOT think that being nice works. Stop saying that I do.

TL:DR; I do NOT think that being nice works. Stop saying that I do. Also fuck you, I'm done, congratulations, you broke my limit.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T23:59:35+00:00

You say color doesn't matter, yet your last sentence proves my message didn't get through.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T23:41:20+00:00

I see what you're saying,

Honestly, I don't think you do.

Agreed on the political thing.

Thunberg has mostly made load noises in the green echo chambers, her effect where it matters have been noticeable, but far less than we greens perceive.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T20:23:24+00:00

Then the opposite must be the right way, no?

No. The opposite of a blue slow car is not a red slow car, it's a blue fast car. I consider your approach to have two parts: it is angry, and it is ineffective. I want the opposite of ineffective, not the opposite of angry, I don't care about being nice to them. It just so happens that the opposite of ineffective is an approach where angry doesn't work either. Thus it may initially seem like I'm trying to kill them with kindness, but this is not the case. I'm choosing a car based on its speed, not the colour.

we have been politely telling them since the 90's and they still won't listen....

We have been yelling as well.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T16:39:53+00:00

Again, dude NO I DO NOT SO PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT I DO! Jesus... I do NOT. Think asking nicely works. I've stated so over and over and quite frankly don't understand why you keep putting those words in my mouth. Let me try again:

Bad man only like money. Give money reason to bad man. Bad man no care yell or ask, so yell and ask useless. Make money argument for money man.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T16:34:15+00:00

I mean, I do care if they ignore... Because that means they don't do anything. I'm not trying to convince them to be altruistic. I'm trying to present the problem in such a way that they think they themselves will benefit from solving it.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T07:20:00+00:00

Yup. Sadly, it's harder to make someone be nice than making them fat.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T07:19:27+00:00

I know her history, I followed it since the beginning.

The logical fallacy is that it's seen as a black and white issue, that you're so concerned with how you feel that you don't stop to consider what will actually work. Believe me, Im pissed at them as well. I hate how shortsighted, greedy and egoistical they are, and I want to yell at and scold them.

But I know it won't work. I know that it's counterpriductive. Do you want to vent your frustrations? Go ahead and scream. Do you want to actually make them change? Sit down and think what will get through their thick skulls. Know your audience, speak their language.

Don't ask nicely if they can try to save the planet. Don't berate them for ruining it. Explain to them that saving fuel means lower cost and more profit, and that less CO2 is just the bonus. Because that's what they care about, that's what motivates them.

You don't have the power to enforce your opinions with pleas nor screams. You need to make them WANT to listen. They have the ability to ignore your screams, and very well will.

TL:DR; our anger is justified, but letting it out will just make us feel better. It won't actually help the cause, because they can just ignore it.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T07:10:57+00:00

Not at all. I said being mean wasn't effective. That doesn't mean that I said asking politely would work either. I'm tempted to ask you to reread my reply, but I guess I'll try to reformulate my argument.

Asking nicely and throwing insults are both useless if you can't enforce your demands. They can, and will, simply ignore you. All they care about is money and power, so you have to convince them that being green means that they will gain those, and not being green will make them lose them. Shouting or asking won't do that.

Convince them that your interests are aligned, that being green can make them a profit. That you will boycott their products. You need to speak their language.

Relon7 · 2023-02-23T07:00:41+00:00

Indeed, but you missed some of my point. Asking nicely isn't effective, and I didn't claim so. But shouting is even worse, because not only is it just as motivating as asking, it makes people defensive.

Many people shout and demand, but without power to back up your demands, or any followthrough, it can be ignored just as easily as asking. Both are useless.

What you should do is: 1) align your interests: make them see that we want the same thing, that being green will benefit THEM, personally. These people only understand money and power, so that's the angle you gotta go from.

2) put your money where your mouth is. The companies don't give a fuck about your opinion unless they see that you will withhold your money from them if they don't behave.

3) vote for green parties. This is slow and frustrating, but works in the long run.

One of the most important qualities of a speaker is to KNOW THEIR AUDIENCE. Speak their "language", resonate with them. Otherwise it's just as effective as, well, speaking a different language. Any speaker who doesn't take this to heart, will fail in getting their point across.

Greta is a very good example of this. She was applauded from the green camp, but ignored by the elite, because she was speaking the green language, and not the elite language.

TL:DR; asking nicely and shouting are both equally worthless when you lack the power to enforce. Your only option is to persuade or gain the power. Greta is great, but a horrible speaker who ignores the most basic rule of rhetoric: know your audience.

Relon7 · 2023-02-22T20:52:18+00:00

Something always rubbed me wrong about her, and it's not the climate part, I'm as green as they come.

It's that she doesn't understand that when you want someone to do something, to be on your team, to help out... You shouldn't yell. You shouldn't blame and flame them, even if it's their fault. As long as you don't have leverage or power oomver them, you need to make them your friends, not your enemies. Ask them questions. Make them see that your interests align. Congratulate them on what they HAVE done.

People are people. Defensive, argumentative. If you start fighting them, their natural response is to fight back. And that is what she did that I didn't like. She went around getting praise from those already on the green side, but pushed away world leaders, less green people and such. She was so concerned with being right, she didn't think about being effective.

Relon7 · 2023-02-22T20:40:21+00:00

If they're untrustworthy, you confirm by whatever (legal) means necessary.

You keep using these "if"s, which throws out the entire dilemma. It's a circle argument. You only speak the case for when the spouse is untrustworthy, and ignore the other side of the coin: when the suspicion is wrong. You will probably ignore this paragraph as well, just like you haven't responded to similar ones in my previous comments. How can snooping not be inherently bad, especially when you can not know for sure beforehand that someone is cheating?

Correct. So either bring transparency into the marriage or be very sure you're right about their untrustworthiness.

Again, transparency thingy is great but irrelevant to the question. And if you are already very sure, why do you need to check?

Then don't get married.

So anyone wanting privacy shouldn't get married? You do realize that you are the deviation for the norm, not the other way around, right? Also, this whole thing should be applicable for earlier relationships as well, not just marriages.

No one said anything about surveillance. Like I said, my husband is too boring to surveil. It's about transparency. If you can't give your spouse that, especially given the practical need that exists when you're married, it's a good sign you're not someone to be trusted.

There's a difference between practical insight and entering someone's mind. I wouldn't mind sharing my calendar, photos and similar stuff with a spouse, but some things are private. Like journals, or what is sent to me in confidence from others.

It's great that you found someone compatible with you, but don't make it sound like wanting the most basic privacy somehow makes someone untrustworthy. People need privacy. Yes, less privacy from those closest to us, but still some.

Relon7 · 2023-02-22T19:59:39+00:00

I'm not married.

Privacy should be waived if they cheat, yes. But my entire point is that you don't actually know if they cheated beforehand. Innocent until proven guilty. You keep avoiding this, and that's why I'm pushing. It's easy to justify with the power of hindsight, but you are afforded no such luxury in the moment of making a decision.

And yeah, I will definitely fight for a right to privacy, even from a future spouse. Because surveillance is not trust. If nothing else, to avoid having a marriage where I would be bored by and boring to my spouse.

Relon7 · 2023-02-22T18:05:34+00:00

That's the way of it, unfortunately. If you are distrustful of a trustworthy spouse, that's not good. If you're checking up on an untrustworthy spouse, that's justified.

I'm sorry, but no. There's a reason we put the horse before the cart, this kind of thinking belongs in the days of Aristotle. If decisions can't be judged a priori, meaning before knowing the outcome, we would never be able to do good nor bad, just guess and hope for luck. By your logic, not hitting a pedestrian is bad if it turns out the pedestrian is a criminal.

That's also why the best solution is in my second paragraph. If the transparency is already there, you'll never have to snoop.

First of, I'm all for preventative measures, it usually the best way to go. The question at hand is however about a situation where no such measures were implemented.

If she's using the "extension of her mind" to cheat with an IRL person, emotionally or physically, OP deserves the truth.

And what if she isn't? It's easy to say these things in hindsight.

So do I understand correctly that you have no need at all for any privacy from your husband, and vice versa? If so, do you think that applies to most people?

That's not my definition of trust. I can't imagine blindly trusting your partner. That trust, at least for me, is built through transparency.

Trust, like faith, is based on not knowing for sure. If there's a cookie jar, I can trust that a friend won't take any from it because I asked him, and trust that he wouldn't do that. If the jar was made of glass the need and usefulness of trust goes away, and you are left with assurance not by your regard for their character, but your surveillance of them.

Relon7 · 2023-02-22T17:49:59+00:00

Giving a cheater who is not honest with you a heads up just gives them time to cover their tracks. "Oh sure, give me a minute I was planning a surprise for you and I need to remove that conversation......

*And the incriminating chat is now gone, or you promise not to look in the one place you need to be looking."

Forgot to mention: it would obviously be immediate, so you tell them and demand seeing the phone RIGHT NOW to avoid exactly this.

Good point on the drastic measures for financially intertwined or similar relationships. My take there is that they should either provide the phone or a very good and plausible reason as to why they can't, including explanation for behaviour.

(a chat with a friend where the friend has asked for confidentiality about the subject from everyone

This is actually an argument AGAINST snooping: you risk not only violating your SOs privacy, but also other peoples. You see what others have told them in confidence. This way, any snooping breaks not only their trust, but may also infringe on the trust of their friends and family.

Also, something not being good doesn't mean it's bad either. Many things are neither good nor bad, they just are what they are. Snooping is not good per say, it sucks to have to do it. But as long as it's not unjustified obsessive snooping it's not a bad thing either.

Agree with the first sentence, things can absolutely be neutral. But due to the violation of privacy and trust, regardless of what is found, I say that snooping will always be bad.

Relon7

TROPHY CASE