Posts by Drew Morgan

cosmictinker21 said:Exactly. A partner needs to satisfy you on every level—emotionally, socially, intellectually, spiritually, and sexually. And when I say "satisfy," I’m not talking about some twisted S&M dynamic where one person thrives on crushing the other, while the victim just sits there hoping against hope that things will eventually improve because they think it’s all part of some grand, eternal "love." That’s not it. It’s about finding a harmony where disagreements get settled without the constant finger-pointing, the lingering resentment, the guilt trips, or people nitpicking every little thing just to be difficult. Which, let's face it, is exactly what pushovers allow their tormentors to do...

Sometimes, the aggressor doesn't even want to let go of the person they're using to prove their own power. If they did, they'd just be left feeling empty inside. So, if one person manages to walk away, they immediately start hunting for the next target. At the end of the day, both parties usually have a pretty warped idea of what love actually looks like. 🙂

Absolutely! Look at the whole saga involving young Mick—the crew from the USA actually stepped in to try and save him. Now you see how that harasser has spiraled into this aggressive obsession. Honestly, the entire mess Mick found himself in wouldn't have even happened if that woman wasn't such a loose cannon.

silentpilot6 said:Are you suggesting that anyone in this world could be turned into a puppet, provided someone finds the right way to pull their strings?
🙂

Theoretically, yes. Except for you—I've already accounted for you; you don't have any weak spots.

Anyone can be rendered vulnerable, harassed, or humiliated, and they won't recover instantly. But to truly become a shell of a person, you have to actively participate in your own destruction. You need that "X factor"—let's call it a temporary lapse in sanity.

silentpilot6 said:But those aren't the actual reasons... they aren't the roots. They are just surface-level symptoms built on top of the fundamental issues that turned them into such scumbags. If you're trying to figure out why a building collapsed, you don't look at the second or third floor; you look at the foundation. To me, that grouping feels exactly like looking at the upper floors. Where is the ground level? Where is the basement? Where are the actual foundations?...

Anyway, I've had enough internet for one day 😁

pelin gave a solid explanation. I'll go find it and paste it here.

Gerald Ward61 said:Look, Vince, here's the reality check: as people get older, they actually start to grasp what life is all about, and they become way more intentional about who they date. Just because some supermodel has three Ivy League degrees doesn't mean she's a catch. Honestly, someone with those exact specs could just be a massive pain in the ass. For people who have actually built something for themselves, what really matters is finding an equal... plain and simple.

Agreed. I've lived my life by that one rule since I was a kid.

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?

In the States, they fall into two distinct camps:
1. Those who are completely bulletproof against insults or humiliation.
2. Those who fold instantly at flashy lies, grandstanding, and crumbs of attention.

silentpilot6 said: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.

Based on what I've seen, I've come to this conclusion: everyone—except you, of course 😍—has a weakness. Think of Achilles' heel. It's like a specific socket that requires a very specific plug. That’s how it works. Not every victim will fall for it; only the one who hits that exact frequency, the one who has the right plug for that specific socket.

silentpilot6 said: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...

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

silentpilot6 said: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.

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.

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...

silentpilot6 said: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 😬

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.

silentpilot6 said: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."

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.

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. ☕

silentpilot6 said: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...

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.

Gerald Ward61 said:Man, Soul... do we really have to go there? It’s such a gorgeous day out and we’re all actually feeling pretty good... don't ruin the vibe. Honestly, let Legion and Vess find some way to make that fit into a life story or whatever, because all I can picture is just sitting in a dark basement... what a total waste of a good time. 😉

🤣 I value your take on this. Honestly, most of the time I just get super defensive... but yeah, sometimes I can be a total brat, too... 😁 What even is "is"...? Just a thought...

Look, I'm not exactly some untouchable saint, but I definitely know when being too blunt or honest is just... bad timing. Or at least, that's my take on it. Honestly, it's probably a good thing people have a hard time keeping up with me anyway. I tend to lean pretty heavily on sarcasm and weird metaphors to get my point across... or so I like to think... 🤣 😉 And if I screw up? Yeah, I'll own it. No excuses... just straight up admitting it. 🤣 😉
I don't know, man... talking about myself always feels a little ungrateful. I always end up tripping over my own feet when I try...

I only say sorry when there’s a chance people actually took me the wrong way... otherwise, what's the point? If I actually messed up, I don't see any reason to apologize. Honestly, saying sorry when you're clearly in the wrong feels totally pointless. I admit I'm wrong, and that's just that...

Look, saying Sorry actually means something... it’s not just some empty word people throw around for no reason. Seriously, just trust in ethics and morality if you have to... or go to God, I guess... 😉 Just feeling a little bit out of it today... maybe it's the coffee... or just life... who knows...

That’s not even what I meant... Look, I’m not trying to protect my "freedom" or whatever. It’s more like I’m setting boundaries within my own freedom just so I don't end up hurting my partner. All that stalking, hovering, and harassment stuff? Total nonsense. Purely absurd. If someone actually wants to be with you, they’ll be there. Period. If they don't, there isn't a magic trick in the world to force them to stay... And honestly, this is where pride comes in—you can't just let yourself get stepped on by someone who treats you like a literal doormat. Life is too short for that. When you find someone who actually matters, someone who respects you as a human being... man, you'd walk through glass for them. It's that simple. We all set limits on our own independence when we actually care about the person we're with. Heck, you don't even have to be head-over-heels in love, but if you want a "normal" relationship, mutual respect is non-negotiable. As for where those lines are drawn? That’s between you and your partner. There aren't some universal rulebook for this stuff. You and I probably don't even see eye-to-eye on where the limit is... and that's totally fine...

Man, this is spot on! 🙂 Honestly, I’m right there with you on this one. 🙂

Nice comparison. I just found out that Legion is one of those rare moderators who actually gets thanked for doing an excellent job! Since he's clearly earning that lifetime membership, maybe there's one in it for me too. 🙂

Rebecca Scott3 said:...so what does it actually mean to be a total washout....
....(forgive an old lady who doesn't live in the States anymore)....

The term "unknown" was coined right here on Lonely Hearts. There’s a legendary "unknown" theme over there that has even leaked into other media outlets. If you read some of those stories, it’ll click for you.

To put it bluntly: being "unknown" means acting against all reason, spreading yourself thin like a welcome mat for a sadist in a toxic relationship.

silentpilot6 said: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...

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.

silentpilot6 said: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...

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.

silentpilot6 said: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.

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 can't figure out how to link directly to a specific post. This is post #180 in that thread about the pole dancer. Here’s a snippet from it:

"The whole concept is fundamentally flawed; it attempts to force an unnatural hierarchy onto entities that shouldn't even be measured by the same yardstick."

lonegardener said:It 'seems' logical? WOW, I'm noticing progress here. Or rather, it seems to me that I'm noticing progress. 😍

I already laid out exactly why that specific argument is flawed in another thread.

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.

lonegardener said:I’m not really trying to argue about who "deserves" what—to be honest, the whole concept of merit feels a bit fuzzy to me. But if it comes down to it, I’d save a child over 14,000 rabbits every single time. Like I told you, this instinct is just hardwired into my DNA. I don't feel the need to justify it with logic or try to prove some objective "higher value." It’s just how I am. You’re more than free to disagree, of course.

Don't you dare try to tie this back to "common sense" right now. LOL.

Anti-speciesism has been part of my soul since before I was born. 😍 And frankly, it's the only logical stance!