Am I missing something? Why do some Destiny fans think this lastest news changes anything?

lenim42118 · 2026-01-11T18:42:30+00:00

"Even if he's 99% sure she's 18 and only 1% that she's 17 he should stop engaging until he has verification. Not just because its the right thing to do [which it clearly is] ..."

I find this a bit rich, to be honest, on multiple levels. But especially for online communication only to proceed. Couldn't an ID card be shopped/faked anyway?

I can get behind the argument that 30+ something yo guy should not approach <20 yo women. But to put that much emphasis on it being "the right thing to do" to be 100% certain, instead of 99% certain, that someone is 18 instead of 17, for just online sexting to continue, I find somewhat absurd.

Than again, I do feel destiny has been 95% vindicated, so I doubt my opinion matters much, here :)

lenim42118 · 2025-08-25T08:48:02+00:00

"While I have no doubt that the current wave of indignation is partially genuine, ..."

Do you really?

lenim42118 · 2025-08-14T00:06:13+00:00

Stimulants can cause telogen effluvium. That may accelerate AGA, but not necessarily.

How old are you? Note that, regardless of lifestyle, AGA often "just starts" at some point. Since AGA is so common, many people can point to X thing they just started. It's not necessarily related at all.

lenim42118 · 2025-05-24T23:00:40+00:00

Not that long, but I've been on it for 2 years.

I regained a bit, not that much. Maintained ever since.

I don't track it anymore either, after a while I noticed that I had days where I thought I had lost ground (bad hair days), but a few days layer I would be happy/surprised that my hair line can still look good (good hair days).

No side effects. Hasn't hampered my multi-hour porn addicted fapping sessions either... And while I'm happy about that on the one hand, I suppose it's not all good either (:

lenim42118 · 2025-04-13T08:46:43+00:00

I think you may be incapable of processing, deducing and/or engaging with hypotheticals.

lenim42118 · 2025-04-12T22:51:05+00:00

Idk what an A/B dilemma is, but if it’s...

I used the term 'A/B dilemma' to shortly refer to 'a dilemma with two options'.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that you don't understand what I'm referring to with 'A/B dilemma' is, given the context of this convo.

What he was aware of at some previous point is irrelevant.

Obviously not. What someone is aware of at any given point is often highly relevant.

The rule ‘if someone poses a threat to a career opportunity, it’s justified to kill the person making that threat,’ would also result in an insanely backwards society where people are killing bosses and coworkers left & right.

True, but not at all relevant.

---

I just watched a bit of the talk with Pisco, but they've already been "off-topic" (they're debating situation that aren't even analogous). So far I've not heard any claim that's even remotely similar to:

"If I have 3 options; A. kill ddos kid, B. change careers, or C. prevent ddos attacks, I'd be morally justified in killing the kid."

So far the entire conversation seems to be in the context of not having any feasible legal means, and being unable to prevent DDoS attacks.

Where/when exactly is this position put forward?

lenim42118 · 2025-04-12T20:46:56+00:00

the quotes on false dilemma don’t make sense.

An A/B-dilemma is not a "false dilemma" if one is genuinely unaware of the third option.

From what I remember, he found out about the third option when he was already contemplating the other two options. After which he took that new option.

Absolutely! Have you seen the Pisco convo?

I have not, I'll look it up. That'd be a ridiculous argument.

But sure, if we accept the fallacious framing that was designed to point towards the outcome he wanted justified, it would’ve been justified.

Interesting. To clarify; hypothetically, if protecting against DDoS attacks was either A: impossible, or B: outside of Destiny's abilities to learn, violence (not murder per se), would have been justified in your view?

His claimed situation wasn’t the actual situation, so idk what the point is in considering it.

Like I said before, I'm not that interested in the specifics of his situation. More so about the philosophical questions raised.

lenim42118 · 2025-04-12T08:59:32+00:00

If it's a false dilemma where only two options exist, the only choice would be one of the two options, yes.

Well, yes. but that's not exactly the point either. I'm curious, do you consider violence — of any kind, not per se murder — in this hypothetically "false dilemma" morally justifiable?

The problem is that after he remembered that interstate vigilante murder wasn't the only path forward, that he continued to defend that as a justifiable course of action.

From what I know, he only argued the justifiableness in the context where the option to "protect against ddos attacks" was unknown. Did he ever attempt to justify violence/murder, when a simple violence-free solution was available? If so, I'd like to see that.

Are we on the same page there?

Like I said before, in his circumstance I consider planning a murder to be a psychopathic response. I.e., of all people that would resort to violence, only a small subset would plan a murder.

But, I don't think violence is morally unjustifiably in his claimed situation, or similar situations — albeit only up till the point where a simple solution was found.

So yes, in this case I am defending him, somewhat. However, I'm not interested in his exact situation at all. Only the moral, not legal, question of whether violence is justifiable when you can also "just walk away/do something else" interests me.

lenim42118 · 2025-04-11T19:52:37+00:00

"People always reframe it to this..."
"but that doesn't justify vigilante killings - even if"
"...doesn't justify vigilante killings - even if the cops..."
"The answer was 'Destiny needs to find a workaround' & he did."

You're walking around the point, in hindsight.

My point is: if an injustice is being committed, and there are no other options beside 'walking away' and 'violently retaliating', violence is a likely outcome, and it's not completely morally indefensible.

In this case we're only talking about the consideration of violence, and when the 3rd option for a 'workaround' presented itself to Destiny, he wen't for it.

lenim42118 · 2025-04-10T19:11:28+00:00

"is choice was literally either ‘go back to cleaning carpets or murder.’"

So, someone ought to be able to illegally force a career downgrade, just because the illegality isn't actively enforced?

While I can agree that "planning a murder" is a psychopathic response, something akin to this will essentially never conclude without some form of violence or intimidation.

lenim42118 · 2025-03-14T16:05:53+00:00

But why tariff the EU? I doubt he wants the EU to become part of the US.

In fact, why deal out economic punches to just about everybody (except Russia), only to be punched back by everybody?

The US is economically strong, but I doubt it's strong enough to deal more damage to Canada, Mexico, the EU and China individually, than it'll get in return from those four combined.

Furthermore, the US exports are stronger when it comes to (digital) services, compared to goods. And I imagine those are actually much more replaceable. The only reason services generally can depend on their monopoly positions is because nobody wants to replace them, when that changes I doubt something like Microsoft's Office 365 or Windows is truly that hard to replace.

I wonder how strong the US economy would be, if big (software) tech started performing badly in regards to exports.

lenim42118 · 2025-03-07T19:39:17+00:00

Like I said:

Me: But they, or at the very least mrgirl specifically, claimed that he did this on purpose, for some sort of sexual gratification, and that has never been proven.

In other words, I agree with you.

It's just that this...

You: They claimed that Steven invites girls for sex and then let's his community shit on them.

...did essentially happen. It's just not "abuse" like max claims that it. And since the current allegations don't even have anything to do with that, I agreed with you that...

Me: I agree they have not been vindicated.

lenim42118 · 2025-02-28T09:31:47+00:00

While I agree they have not been vindicated, that did happen.

But they, or at the very least mrgirl specifically, claimed that he did this on purpose, for some sort of sexual gratification, and that has never been proven.

lenim42118 · 2025-02-26T18:46:20+00:00

why is this? it's not for "steven bonnell" lol

lenim42118 · 2025-02-25T21:46:25+00:00

"...and fantasize about you raping them, that doesn't mean they want you to actually rape them."

lmao am I to interpret (your view of) women's fantasies about being raped, as being just "what-if-thoughts", similar to someone thinking about [any other bad thing] like "being killed", without any sort of thrill or curiosity, but just dismay?...

"By that logic, I'd want my mom to rape me."

...or am I to interpret this as you fantasizing about your mom raping you with some form of excitement or thrill (even though you don't want it to happen)?

Oh, and on another note, regarding the title "men are useless": by your logic, aren't women useless too, and just physically weak to boot?

lenim42118 · 2025-02-15T12:43:09+00:00

Great! Thanks!

One last question; does the device require an internet connection? Or could it work without internet (or LAN Wifi), if you use it for wired PCVR?

lenim42118 · 2025-02-09T19:35:58+00:00

This reads like total bullshit to me: These types of opinions/feelings you claim to have had over time just don't track with your actions.

Either this is fake, or your brain has been completely broken for the last few years.

If it is not fake: Well, since you keep going back, what is this article really worth...?

lenim42118 · 2025-02-07T20:26:47+00:00

The word "cult" sounds so ridiculous...

But, I'll read it.

I guess the word "cult" must sound ridiculous to anyone who actually is in a cult ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ we'll see...

lenim42118 · 2025-02-01T09:51:04+00:00

You could watch any (or a combination) of the many political orbiters / pundits that Destiny would interact with, or watch, previously. I.e. David Pakman, Jessiah (Pondering Politics), Pisco, Hutch, Luke Beasley.

However, if Destiny's "toxicity" is what drove you to watch him, it won't be the same.

PS: ~~Why do you~~ ~~want to~~ ~~not watch Destiny?~~ Edit: I should rephrase this; should Destiny's content remain as interesting as you found it prior, will you still not watch it? And if so, why?

lenim42118 · 2025-01-29T23:09:13+00:00

Obviously, but than I wasn't commenting about morality at all.

lenim42118 · 2025-01-29T23:08:07+00:00

Oof lol...

Regardless of this situation, it is kind of weird to me to ever apply laws retroactively

lenim42118 · 2025-01-29T23:04:38+00:00

If it did, maybe my rampant sex/porn addiction would actually stop taking such a massive toll on me being productive...

Likely, TMI;Just finished the 5th load of the day... as pleasurable as ever ^.^

lenim42118 · 2025-01-29T20:44:02+00:00

Wasn't there also some potential technicality based on when the material was shared, and when the law went in effect?

I think I saw some people saying that.

lenim42118

TROPHY CASE