Posts by silentpilot6

Drew Morgan said:Logical fallacy! Using social status or "objective qualities" as a metric for attraction is nonsense. Falling in love is purely subjective.

Look, you're the one who started bringing up social standing—not me. That was never even on my radar... so I'm not sure what we're actually debating here 🤷
What kind of logical fallacy is that? 😕

Gerald Ward61 said:Please, it’s not exactly some deep state conspiracy: it's just straight-up masochism. They've been sorted into cliques forever.
What else do you want from me?

I've already made this point in this thread, and people didn't exactly agree... though most folks here prefer to philosophize about rabbit holes and elite theories😁 rather than addressing the actual reasons behind such blatant corruption.

Drew Morgan said:Hmm. That logic only holds up if "common sense" is just a subjective label or if you equate it directly with popular opinion.

See the flaw? If the majority actually possessed common sense, the elites wouldn't be in charge.

Oh boy... now you're really starting to get philosophical 😛... like I said, common sense is often—though not always—just the majority opinion... I don't see what part isn't clear. 🤷
And common sense can sometimes 😬 be both a relative and a deeply personal category.
But for most people, the consensus of the many 😁 effectively becomes their own view. Whether "they" think that way because they're following the crowd to avoid making waves, or whether they would hold those same views even if they were completely isolated... 😁 well, that's the real question.

As for the rule of the elites... look. People tend to follow the herd anyway... give them some colorful posters, plenty of campaign promises, and patch up a few potholes before an election, and you'll see... we're drifting into sociology here, but there are certainly historical examples where elections actually shifted social orders... or at least changed the direction on specific issues, though we are moving into politics now...
It’s not as if elections change nothing... and the theory of elite rule isn't quite that black and white either.

Gerald Ward61 said:Legion, you’re forgetting that their reality is basically warped... I mean, after being suspended so many times, anyone would just retreat into a different version of the truth just to survive the pain. You know how it goes: they convince themselves it wasn't actually them, that they used to be such a great person before everything went south... It's a defense mechanism. Honestly, I can barely even deal with these spikes lately... 🙄Once people finally "snap out of it"—if they even realize what happened—they’re usually just totally lost. Or worse, they start swinging wildly toward the complete opposite extreme just to feel something. It takes forever to find any kind of balance again... honestly, we're talking years. And there's always that massive risk that they won't stumble into anything better than their old, messy baseline, so they just end up crashing right back into the exact same type of toxic relationship... typical.

But hey, let's get a word from our girl cock-a-doodle-doo... I wonder how exactly she was weaving all that magic together... right there in those soft lady parts of hers... 🙂

I know their perception of reality is skewed... let's try to pinpoint exactly why that distortion is happening.
I agree that while everyone has their own individual motivations, they can still be categorized into certain groups. It isn't quite as chaotic as it seems; there aren't actually that many distinct reasons at play here.

Drew Morgan said:By the way, explain to me why letting a woman like that trample you would be okay? Does having social status just magically strip away your loser status? Is that how it works? If she’s important, suddenly you aren't a nobody? That logic is flawed.

I disagree; I think your reasoning is what's actually off.
Let's look at this logically... we all look for specific qualities in a potential partner. The more traits someone possesses that matter to us, the more we like them, and the faster we fall in love... isn't that how it works?
Furthermore, I'd assume that a relationship with a stunning supermodel who holds three degrees and is the life of every party would be higher quality than a relationship with some bitter person who lies around the bed like a dead fish and has one incredibly boring friend... wouldn't you agree?
I know you're focusing strictly on looks to try and derive some kind of social validation. Look, no matter how much people pretend otherwise, 😁 appearance matters... even if those who claim differently are just lying to themselves. 😬 Sure, it's not everything, and it's certainly not the most important thing, but if I had to choose between two people who are equal in every other way, but one is a supermodel and the other is a total nightmare, 😬 who would anyone pick?

To simplify it even further... if I'm going to drink wine and deal with a headache, I'd much rather drink a high-end vintage and suffer the next day 😁, than gulp down some cheap, sour swill...

Drew Morgan said:That’s your opinion, if you say so...😍

It doesn't change the reality that Megashupendara is a rational individual who just endured a bizarre encounter with a blonde chain.

And that's that...

A "strange experience" is 🤣 putting it mildly... but alright. You're clearly a huge fan of this user's work, whereas I find them completely 😬 and I think we should just leave it at that...

Drew Morgan said:The moment this world—which is supposedly run by the majority (though I don't buy that for a second)—actually starts behaving logically, then I'll concede that majority rule makes sense. Until then, common sense should always trump a headcount.

Often, though certainly not always, the majority does represent common sense... and this world is never going to become "exemplary." While I don't necessarily believe the majority is in charge either, I'm not exactly a conspiracy theorist... I'd say Pareto was spot on with his theory regarding elites, but I suppose this isn't the sociology subforum😁...

Ultimately, if the majority decides something is good, bad, black, white, crazy, or normal, then for all intents and purposes, 😬 that's just how it is.

Drew Morgan said:

The Legion stands alone. It’s like a lone wolf facing a pack of hyenas—strength isn't found in numbers, but in conviction. The user says:
I find certain things frankly repulsive. Playing at being a doormat or using punching bags—it’s bizarre behavior. Don't you agree, Drew Morgan?

You’re being weird—period. If you think I’m the strange one, fine—I’ll just have to study them. ☕

I’ll admit we see things differently. I’m not surprised you’d burn the whole world to the ground just to save a single human being. You’re a racial specialist and an anthropocentrist—how could I expect anything else?

The Legion is a force to be reckoned with. It’s like a heavy artillery division rolling through an open field—unstoppable and absolute. Drew Morgan says:
Are those Megashupendaras weird or just plain stupid? Some certainly are. Take that Megashupendara guy—he’s a total freak among freaks. As for Pelin, he’s been exposed as a fraud, so he isn't even worth the breath it takes to mention him.
What does "stupid" even mean? You can be born an idiot. 😬 It’s the lesser of two evils. You can't blame that individual; anyone can become an idiot simply by choosing to switch off their brain. Plenty of Megashupendaras—especially those long-time Megashupendaras—have made a career out of it. Switching off your brain isn't exactly a stroke of genius, is it? And if it isn't smart, then what do we call it? 😉

They didn't just switch their brains off by choice; they hit some kind of bizarre neurological glitch. It’s strange to me, too—honestly, it's pretty intriguing.

Regarding Megashupendara, he isn't some oddball; he is an exceptionally organized and steady individual. As for Pelin, there is zero proof he ever lied. That’s just a baseless standard cooked up by that little clique from the USA—don't mistake their internal gossip for actual truth.

The Legion is an absolute joke. It’s nothing more than a disorganized mob masquerading as a force. Real power requires structure, not just noise. [Drew Morgan] says:
The concept of "temporary measures" is a joke. This isn't lasting a day or even a couple of months; we’re talking about years. It's like calling a permanent fixture a placeholder.

I’ve said it before—this isn't just the flu. It can drag on indefinitely depending on the individual.

And I am studying them as well... by reading up on the subject and opening discussions regarding psychology...

I admit, I am a speciesist. Fine. 👍 And you're a vegan extremist. 🤣
That strange state of brain shutdown... it's not about the gut, it's about the neck. It's not nonsense, it's just reality. 😁
Megashupendara is Megashupendara... a stable person. 🤣 Come on, let's just say that. In my view, anyone who allows themselves to be manipulated that heavily cannot be considered a stable person, regardless of how perfect or righteous they might be in every other aspect.

I honestly don't know why everyone is acting so shocked. 😵
It seems like kids have been skipping class since forever, and they'll probably keep doing it for a long time to come...

You know what truly baffles me? 🤣 It’s hearing people claim that these socialites were just following their hearts, even though their partners weren't particularly talented, charismatic, or even attractive... let alone great in bed.
I could perhaps wrap my head around someone letting themselves be walked all over by a world-class supermodel who happens to be an Ivy League scholar and a total bombshell 😁... but many of these social climbers were being bossed around by the exact opposite. According to everything we read, some were even being dominated by guys who would struggle to find a date at a local dive bar, let alone in a high-end matchmaking service 😬

Drew Morgan said:The majority is completely irrelevant in a debate. If this world were a perfectly functioning machine, the majority criterion might hold water. In reality, that metric is nothing more than a wild goose chase.

I did address it. You want a concrete example? Megashupandara was, for instance, a printer in one group, and a contrarian in another. He stated his individual reasons multiple times. pelin also went a bit deeper when analyzing his own motives.

Ultimately, the only truth is that every individual requires an independent study. Everyone has their own reasons.

Your explanation that it's just pure stupidity is overly simplistic and simply doesn't work.

But how does this world function if not by the majority?

Think about what you consider the "majority" during the next presidential election 😉... or even when you're hanging out with your girlfriends, deciding where to go out, and most of them want to head to a specific spot...
Sure, the majority isn't always the deciding factor everywhere, but it is a criterion that is valid in many cases—not just valid, but decisive.

As for studying individuals... if we're talking about psychology 😬, does a psychiatrist or psychologist study every single person in total isolation? Of course they study the individual... but that specific behavior is always categorized within larger frameworks or groups that share certain behavioral patterns to allow for a "diagnosis."

Drew Morgan said:You're clearly a speciesist, because that's not how anti-speciesists think. Look at this example—it's just me being me. You're simply outraged by anything someone does that doesn't align with your own view.

I am appalled by things that are, to put it mildly, bizarre... like acting like a floor mat or using punching bags. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
To me, it’s just as strange that someone would value a rabbit as much as a human... yet to you, it's strange that someone might rather wipe out all the rabbits to save a single person...
What is the fundamental difference between you and me?
Are certain politicians strange or foolish? Well, some certainly are. Take those extreme ones, for instance—total oddballs. And since certain pundits have been exposed as liars, I won't even waste my breath on them.
As for being foolish... one can be born that way, 😬 which is the lesser evil. It isn't the person's fault. But one can also become foolish by simply switching off their own brain—which many politicians, especially those who have been in office for years, have done. They turned their brains off... is there anything intelligent about that? If it isn't intelligent, then what 😉
And please don't give me the "temporary lapse in judgment" excuse, because this hasn't lasted for a day or two, or even a month or two—it has gone on for years...

Drew Morgan said:I already laid out exactly why that specific argument is flawed in another thread.

Go ahead, I'm all ears... at least until a moderator jumps in and starts making a fuss about us going off-topic.😛

Drew Morgan said:They’re being downright primitive here—reducing everything to a simple "I would never do that" logic.

Essentially, he’s stripping his own arguments of any nuance just to avoid dealing with the actual variables at play.

There you go again... if you haven't noticed, people generally agree with my points, or at least don't see them as fundamentally different from their own logic. And no, I didn't carefully weigh every single word just to avoid hurting some fragile 🤣 ego... honestly, I feel bad for you.

The core issue is the argument that "most people" wouldn't act that way... but they actually wouldn't. The opportunists are the minority, not the majority, though many here seem to forget that.

Fine, what specific variables should I be considering? I tried to break down the reasons behind this opportunistic behavior, yet almost no one addressed it directly. I provided concrete examples, while most people here just engage in endless philosophy, seemingly thinking their words on a screen are somehow profound 😬... eventually, we even ended up talking about rabbits 😵 I think, so sorry... but I could easily say your takes on rabbits and other furry creatures 😁 are also based on ignoring a massive amount of variables...

Jamie Reyes73 said:They aren't primitive, certainly—there’s a legitimate point here that I actually
kind of agree with, even if the delivery is a bit blunt (maybe even a little petty). 😁

And you're hung up on why I called your avatar "sensitive"... 🤣...
Fine then... if I'm being "crude" and "primitive," I suppose those who would prioritize saving a rabbit over a child 😵 are just "enlightened" souls who have moved past such "limited" thinking... Good grief. If I had the choice to save a single child at the cost of every rabbit on Earth, I wouldn't hesitate for a second.

Drew Morgan said:Legion, I’m sorry if you feel targeted—I despise personal attacks. I am simply offering a critique of your crude and primitive arguments!

PS. If you're feeling baffled, maybe ask yourself why everyone else isn't acting like you.

I don't recall anyone else besides you describing my positions as blunt or unrefined. 🤷

My surprise is directed solely toward human folly. 🤷

cosmictinker21 said:Thanks, truly. May we all just soak up this late summer sun... for as long as it lasts.

That’s exactly why I brought up those classic literary masterpieces; they inhabit a space entirely different from our daily reality. Unfortunately, most of them seem to revolve strictly around romance, which is really just one thread woven into the larger tapestry of the book.

I find myself drifting back to books I finished ages ago, and every single time, I stumble upon something fresh... or at least a reminder of what I missed. It feels like reading a brand-new story.

In our culture, love is placed on this untouchable pedestal, yet so few people actually grasp its true essence. It’s just another pillar of social rigidity—much like the sanctity of motherhood, religious dogma, racial politics, or these stubborn prejudices regarding morality and pride. We're fed these ideas from the moment we can walk, and then we carry them around stubbornly and irrationally for decades, never bothering to question if they’re even true once we've grown up.

I remember listening to this guy once who was practically bragging about his "principles," even while everything around him was falling apart. As long as he stayed "principled," right? God forbid... I suppose someone's supposed to give him a standing ovation for that.🤣

Are principles actually more important than the goals themselves?

Take the rule that you shouldn't kill people, for example. Obviously, because otherwise, the entire human race would have wiped itself out, much like how Homo sapiens did to the Neanderthals. But honestly, if someone laid a hand on my child, I’d probably tear them apart with my bare hands... assuming, of course, I wasn't opting for a more legal route.

By the way—there is no evidence that we are, in any capacity, 😁 responsible for the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Drew Morgan said:Quote:

Jerry Martinez5 says: Since you're a moderator, I can't issue a strike. Please go back and actually read the rules.

silentpilot6 is a moderator?!?! 😲😲😲
The guy spends his entire existence looking for ways to suck up to the elite!

And you have seemingly dedicated yours to attacking me whenever the opportunity arises.😵

I am not undermining anyone; I am simply expressing my bewilderment at their actions...

cosmictinker21 said:It’s because those people aren't really in love with the partner—they’re just in love with the idea of love itself. They project that onto the other person. They’re so desperate for affection that they'll tolerate almost anything just to maintain the illusion that they're being loved by someone else. In their own heads, they "know" it's there. Everyone needs to feel like they actually matter to someone...

But they don't actually have love... it's like being thirsty and trying to drink sand instead of water 😁 while convincing myself I've had my fill 😵
Sorry-neko can be in love with someone who doesn't return the sentiment—someone who isn't even actively mistreating them—but I honestly cannot wrap my head around how anyone could sincerely love a person who is constantly playing mind games with them, all while maintaining the delusion that the feeling is mutual 🤷... to me, that just doesn't seem healthy... which is why this falls under psychology 😁

Drew Morgan said:So, how do you justify claiming someone was a pushover in just one relationship? Everything you listed isn't a permanent part of his character. Take masochism, for example—it isn't an inherent trait, so you can't just label him a masochist by default.

Look, I don't know how many times someone has been submissive... whether it happened once, twice, or if it's just standard for some people... 🤷 But I know a few submissive people, and they have all been that way multiple times.😁