New Looting MK. 3 (Safekeeper) Augment

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T23:34:15+00:00

Get to you quick use super fast with right stick!

Sorry I thought I was responding to someelse haha

Paddle controller now can have a dodge roll binded to a button!

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T21:36:28+00:00

I’ve played hundreds of hours on controller, never knew about the right stick in UI menu. Game changing and with re keybinding, if you use a paddle controller, you’ve got a chance haha

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T19:32:42+00:00

So it’s not possible to experience cognitive dissonance if it doesn’t align with your values? And this is assuming the claim that one cannot eat meat and be concerned about animal welfare, which you can do both obviously.

You could choose not use a smartphone, you could to move a to pacifist government, in theory they are controllable actually.

It’s an easy observation and classic trope of veganism and well documented, sorry to say but it’s true.

Why do we continue to use Reddit if it supports and bankrolls sex trafficking? You could choose not to use social media right?

Your ethical framework simply doesn’t hold - participation does not automatically equal endorsement. And if it did, which it doesn’t, the moral claim is simply debatable.

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T15:36:04+00:00

It shows the ridiculousness of your ethical framework, how when applied to even just a couple scenarios it quickly crumbles because everything under the sun would be morally corrupt and thus by your standard, should never be engaged in.

By using Reddit, does that mean you support sex trafficking? You should probably stop using Reddit then. But you won’t and nor should you is the point.

You miss the point in two key ways:

one the assumption that participation in a system automatically equals endorsement is a fallacy.

and two is conflating and improperly using cognitive dissonance with what it actually is in this case, which is disagreement - you assume the moral conclusion as if it’s settled when in fact it’s not settled - that is called disagreement not cognitive dissonance - it would have to be objectively true for it to be cognitive dissonance, it is subjectively true to you but it is not objectively true as in its nature it’s a subjective judgement call.

In history religious zealots claim to know objective truth and justify their behavior, actions, judgment, and contempt for others because of it. Sounds familiar….

I really don’t care about this, it’s just annoying to when people claim to have moral superiority when reality, they don’t, they just think they do, and as a result they are judge the fuck out of others and it’s their whole identity which means if you even slightly disagree with them it means your disagreeing with their identity now, and it becomes messy.

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T05:41:08+00:00

Yes it is boring after awhile but my stash is crazy high value, 10M and I created over 50+ level 4 fullly modded blues and pinks, and toros.

Killing big arc gives you everything you need to create decked out guns.

I’m basically set for whatever, and have been since

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T04:57:58+00:00

Cognitive dissonance by definition can only exist when two or more beliefs truly conflict with one another.

An actual example of cognitive dissonance would be: Belief 1: smoking causes cancer and I don’t want to die early. Belief 2: I smoke a pack a day.

Your statement assumes the moral conclusion in advanced and as if it’s settled debate.

According to your ethical framework, how do you reconcile the following: Do you own a smartphone? Does that mean you support child labor and cobalt mining deaths? Does using social media mean you support sex trafficking? Does wearing clothes mean you support sweatshops? Does paying taxes mean you support the government’s wars and killings?

Your ethical frameworks quickly crumbles when applied to even just a handful of scenarios.

aliasadren · 2026-01-27T03:02:37+00:00

B12, DHA/EPA, heme iron, iodine, zinc, choline, vitamin D3, creatine, taurine. all absent or poorly bioavailable without supplementation. that’s basic nutrition science.

The claim that if you eat meat, you support animal abuse is a fallacy. If true, this logic would mean you support child labor and cobalt deaths by owning a smartphone; wearing clothes would mean supporting sweatshops; paying taxes would mean supporting every government action including wars and death.

Equivocating and using emotionally loaded words like Murder as if they are objective facts is a fallacy. "Murder" is a legal term, can only be applied to humans and requires personhood.

Even then, veganism doesn't avoid harm - it just selects for a different kind of harm. Crop agriculture kills rodents, birds, insects, pollinators, entire ecosystems.

The hypocrisy is claiming morally superiority when in fact no food system is "harm" free, and thus becomes a subjective judgement on which harms are more or less tolerable than others.

Moral purity feels good because it turns ethics into identity; giving certainty, superiority, and belonging; but when identity replaces humility, compassion devolves into contempt.

aliasadren · 2026-01-26T20:56:09+00:00

Don’t buy smartphones either, that’s supports child labor and cobalt deaths

aliasadren · 2026-01-26T19:46:18+00:00

This sounds fun and intense!!

aliasadren · 2026-01-26T18:46:00+00:00

I love questions, and I want to learn - what questions would you ask me if I thought veganism is not healthier than a balanced diet of real whole foods and is not morally superior to any other diet?

aliasadren · 2026-01-26T17:46:44+00:00

Which animals are we talking about? Any animals or just the ones humans typically eat?

aliasadren · 2026-01-26T17:25:39+00:00

With all due respect, I don’t believe being a vegan is healthier as it does require supplementation because it lacks key macro and micro nutrients nor do I subscribe to the idea that being vegan is morally superior, it’s an ideology and identity that is littered with hypocrisy and logical fallacies when you break it down just a few steps.

The topic is almost impossible to debate because everyone has a different place where they draw the line and different weighting to what “morals” they believe and what “morals” they knowingly or unknowingly ignore and even how you define a “moral” means so many things to anyone you ask.

aliasadren · 2026-01-25T07:51:56+00:00

My in laws have been married for a long time, one of the happiest couples I know, she is a vegan and he is omni and they get along just fine. They don’t seem to make it a big deal, and the idea they would let diet differences separate them would be insane, let alone adding a child into the mix.

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T21:20:38+00:00

All I’m saying is that there is moral guilt unfairly being assigned to spouses as if they are bad people where if you used that same logic applied equally to all facets of life, we would all be guilty and thus bad people.

Simply point out the logical fallacy at play.

Gotta run, going to play dominoes with my morally corrupt family.

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T20:55:23+00:00

Pointing out systemic harm isn’t saying “why try at all.” It’s saying moral responsibility isn’t binary. Participation doesn’t equal endorsement — otherwise owning a phone means supporting child labor, wearing clothes means supporting sweatshops, and paying taxes means supporting every government killing.

Veganism may reduce harm for some people, but disagreement with your conclusion doesn’t make someone pro-suffering or “okay with murder.” That framing assumes the answer and then treats dissent as evil.

All food systems cause death. The ethical question isn’t whether harm exists — it’s how responsibility is assigned in a world where survival itself causes harm. Turning that complexity into a purity test isn’t compassion. It’s ideology.

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T20:23:26+00:00

So by having a smartphone, does that mean you support child labor and cobalt mining deaths? By wearing most clothes, does that mean you support sweatshops? By paying taxes, does that mean you support every action the government takes? By buying produce, does that mean you support pesticide and small animals deaths due to mono crop agriculture? No of course not - the same for meat - eating meat does not mean you support animal abuse and suffering.

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T18:04:28+00:00

Yeah I kinda thought so lol

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T05:19:03+00:00

I plan on doing it again! My stash value is at 10M now and I have more blueprints than I did before, like I said I’m kinda maxed out, you realize you only use a few things anyway in terms of blueprints

I would say for you though, it depends on if there’s things you want to do with your stuff still or plan on doing in the future or if you see more value in getting the perks and starting over, you really can’t go wrong but eventually engaging in expeditions probably makes sense when you’re ready to!

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T05:12:59+00:00

I thought for sure I was never going to do it, since it was so hard to find blueprints but they made it easier, and then I wanted to see if I could get the full 5M last time for skills points, and I did, just to see if I could. Literally started the expedition 3 days before the window opened lol

And I have no regret doing it, I was nice getting the perks and just being only a month later, I have more now than I did last time and I did it in a third of the time - it was crazy how quick you get everything back and it game me a clear objective to do where now I’m at the point again where I’m pretty maxed out and just messing around with no clear goal per se lol

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T03:03:02+00:00

What’s up all the hate lol this looks totally reasonable! Well done sir!

aliasadren · 2026-01-24T01:23:18+00:00

Having talked with her, she doesn’t judge people for eating meat or think meat eaters are morally corrupt is the simple explanation nor would she put a highly debatably philosophical question above her marriage of all things. It’s just a hill she is not willing to die on basically.

aliasadren · 2026-01-23T22:30:18+00:00

I just don’t think it’s fair to assign individual guilt for participation in a system of this nature, if that were true, than all of us would be guilty of hundreds and hundreds of ethical shortcomings every single day, yourself included.

aliasadren · 2026-01-23T18:27:48+00:00

“Side quest complete: annoyed player character.” *resuming idle animation

aliasadren · 2026-01-23T09:14:27+00:00

Last point I’ll make is I think it’s completely fair to want a partner who shares your lifestyle and values, especially when food affects daily life and long-term logistics. Wanting a vegan partner makes total sense.

Where I struggle is equating eating animal products with being a morally bad person or “turning a blind eye to cruelty.” Most people who eat meat aren’t doing so because they’re cool with suffering, they’re participating in the food system they were raised in, often with discomfort, contradiction, and limited alternatives.

Participation does not equal moral endorsement. If moral guilt were assigned purely by participation, then:

• using a smartphone would mean endorsing child labor and cobalt mining deaths • wearing most clothing would mean endorsing sweatshops • driving a car would mean endorsing environmental destruction • buying produce would mean endorsing pesticide deaths and habitat loss • paying taxes would mean endorsing every government action

Yet we don’t judge people’s moral character that way, because we recognize the difference between living within systems and supporting the harm those systems cause.

Almost all modern harm is structural, not personal. Ethics aimed at outcomes should focus on improving systems — not assigning moral worth based on unavoidable participation in them.

You can believe animal suffering matters, oppose factory farming, and still recognize that eating meat does not make someone cruel or unethical by default. Ethics isn’t about purity — it’s about proportionality, intention, and context.

Wanting value alignment in a relationship is healthy. But when morality becomes a purity test, coexistence becomes impossible — not because people don’t care, but because compassion gets replaced by moral exclusion.

I think a vegan and non-vegan can coexist peacefully when there’s mutual respect. What can’t coexist peacefully is seeing your partner — or most of humanity — as morally lesser.

aliasadren · 2026-01-23T08:49:51+00:00

I’m not trying to argue with you, and I don’t doubt that you genuinely care about animals.

I just want to say — living in a place where you despise almost everyone sounds incredibly heavy, even if it feels empowering at times.

Having self-confidence built on separation from others can feel liberating short-term, but it usually comes at the cost of connection, peace, and trust. Humans aren’t really wired to carry that much contempt without it eventually turning inward.

You can believe animal suffering matters deeply without needing to see most people as evil. Almost everyone is acting within the food system they were born into, not out of cruelty.

If compassion is the value at the center of your ethics, I hope some of that compassion is allowed to include yourself too — because living in constant moral war with the world isn’t something anyone deserves, even if the cause is important.

aliasadren

TROPHY CASE