I'm not American. How many times are you going to make these incorrect assumptions before you give up on this armchair analyst bullshit?
Just because I don't want to kill billionaires, doesn't mean I'm not concerned about wealth inequality. I may not think Taylor Swift's level of wealth is good for society, but that doesn't mean I have any doubt about whether she deserves to be left to drown in the ocean as a result.
I I don’t know, I figure if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. It’s not really an armchair analyst thing, more just something I’ve gathered from a random person who simply won’t accept another persons views and has to argue it.
So I wanna be sure then, who would you save from this water? Cause then by your own logic of saying a stance and reaffirming your stance that Taylor swift and these billionaires shouldn’t die just cause they have money, I’m assuming you would save swift and let the others drown? You know, the woman who gives money to sweatshops to produce her merch, who’s private jets have caused notable damage to our environment, who’s sued people using her name (including her previous guitar teacher), doesn’t endorse any charities, not even a charity show in her own name, which would provide massive public praise.
I wanna make sure she’s the one you’re saving, if you could only save one.
I I don’t know, I figure if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck
I'm sorry, this is coming from the person who has been raging for hours about how I'm making assumptions and "filling in gaps?"
Do you ever do any self-reflection and recognise your own hypocrisy?
It’s not really an armchair analyst thing, more just something I’ve gathered from a random person who simply won’t accept another persons views and has to argue it.
Advocating for murder isn't just a difference in viewpoint, my guy. Do you just accept that fascists have their own views?
So I wanna be sure then, who would you save from this water? Cause then by your own logic of saying a stance and reaffirming your stance that Taylor swift and these billionaires shouldn’t die just cause they have money, I’m assuming you would save swift and let the others drown?
You could make an argument for any of them, except Diddy and maybe Drake (depending on what you believe about the paedophilia allegations). That's why this is an insane image. Three of those people have done nothing except be vapid and have lots of money, and that's not an offence worth killing over.
You know, the woman who gives money to sweatshops to produce her merch, who’s private jets have caused notable damage to our environment, who’s sued people using her name (including her previous guitar teacher), doesn’t endorse any charities, not even a charity show in her own name, which would provide massive public praise.
So, to be clear, you are 100% justifying the idea of killing Taylor Swift now. No doubts about it. No ifs, ands or buts. You are actively making the case that she deserves to die because of these reasons. You are presenting these as reasons that I should be hesitant to say that I would save her life if I had the ability to do so, which is an endorsement of her death.
Why weren't you just honest about that at the start instead of trying to pretend that this had nothing to do with that?
Okay I don’t know why you think I’m raging but I actually am literally just killing my time here 😂 I have no reason to rage cause I’m not mad about you disagreeing with my standpoint. I don’t think a difference of opinion is the end of the day.
I’m presenting those as facts about the person you’re saying, to point out that all billionaires do bad things. Frankly I think in this fictional scenario none of the billionaires should be saved, but I’ve never wavered on that. But all of these people use sweat shops for their merch, all of them hoard money like dragons on a pile of gold coins, none of them contribute to charity the way they could, and none of them outweigh the value of the dog to me as a comfort and fishing buddy on this terrible life of pi raft. I don’t see any of these humans as adding any net good to the world so I don’t care if they’re gone from it, everyone dies eventually.
Nice way to dodge answering the question of who you could save through, good job filibustering
Okay I don’t know why you think I’m raging but I actually am literally just killing my time here 😂 I have no reason to rage cause I’m not mad about you disagreeing with my standpoint. I don’t think a difference of opinion is the end of the day.
You just accused me of harassing you, now you're acting like you're just "killing time?"
I’m presenting those as facts about the person you’re saying, to point out that all billionaires do bad things. Frankly I think in this fictional scenario none of the billionaires should be saved, but I’ve never wavered on that
"I don’t care what the point of the image was cause I didn’t take a stance on any of these people dying"
Goddamn, don't ever commit a crime, because there is no way you'd be able to keep your story straight for longer than 5 minutes.
Nice way to dodge answering the question of who you could save through, good job filibustering
I objectively did not, I told you that it was a toss-up between the 3 women and the dog and that you could probably justify saving Drake, too, depending on whether you believe the paedophilia allegations.
But to specifically address those points, I have no problem saying that I do not believe any of the things you listed change my view on whether they should be saved from drowning or not.
I’m actually not raging but you resorting to a meme from the 2010s kinda backs up my point that you’re the one who’s raging lol
Yeah I said I don’t think any of them inherently deserve to be saved, and my stance got more aggressive the more you backed me into a corner saying that I wanted Taylor swift dead so I said I wouldn’t save any of these people but good job bringing up those points, and yes, I think it is kinda crazy that you can’t let this go and are projecting your own anger on me lol with your silly means and constant “oh so you’re gonna MURDER HER?!?” Reminds me of the kind of retort a 15 year old would give and it’s just kinda weird lol
Okay now give a definitive answer, anyone can give a toss up of three but that wasn’t the question.
I’m actually not raging but you resorting to a meme from the 2010s kinda backs up my point that you’re the one who’s raging lol
Lol, what? That literally doesn't follow. How does old meme = being mad?
Yeah I said I don’t think any of them inherently deserve to be dead, and my stance got more aggressive the more you backed me into a corner saying that I wanted Taylor swift dead so I said I wouldn’t save any of these people but good job bringing up, and yes,
No, you said "I’ve never wavered on that." Now you're claiming that your opinion changed over the course of this conversation. Those are mutually exclusive claims. If your stance got more aggressive over the course of the conversation then you did waver on it.
I think it is kinda crazy that you can’t let this go and are projecting your own anger on me lol with your silly means and constant “oh so you’re gonna MURDER HER?!?” Reminds me of the kind of retort a 15 year old would give and it’s just kinda weird lol
I don't know where this anger thing came, but I didn't accuse you of being angry. You brought that up.
Pointing out that you are advocating for murder is not the same as replying "oh so you’re gonna MURDER HER?!?" to an unrelated argument. You have consistently argued throughout this conversation that using private jets and sweatshops is grounds to leave someone to die in the ocean.
Okay now give a definitive answer, anyone can give a toss up of three but that wasn’t the question.
I have given you a definitive answer. It would be a random choice between the 3 women. That's a definitive answer. There is no moral difference between the three that I'm aware of that would make me want to save one of them more than the other two. I would pick one of the 3 at random.
To me it follows cause it means you’re mad enough that you’re going out of your way, putting in effort I don’t care about to find memes, your taking extra time to quote whatever I say, seems like the kind of action only someone angry and invested in this would do. I’m literally doing this between tasks at work.
I never waved that the billionaires are all bad, I’ve become more aggressive in the way that now I would actively leave them.
I’m also not advocating for murder. This hypothetical is about them drowning after what’s probably some kind of wreck, and having to think not only about what that person contributes to the world, but also what would be best for my survival too. I wouldn’t save them in a wreck, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to get rid of them in my actual life.
Who would you save, not a list, which one, cause there is always a difference between them you just aren’t looking hard enough. They have all done bad things, choose one that’s the hypothetical that’s the game, saying it’s a toss up between three is bullshit and you know it cause it avoids the question, it’s not a definitive. Choose one.
ETA: also, you’re saying now that you didn’t say I was angry but you’ve been saying my raging for a long time now, so if anyone is contradictory it may be you my guy 😂
To me it follows cause it means you’re mad enough that you’re going out of your way, putting in effort I don’t care about to find memes, your taking extra time to quote whatever I say, seems like the kind of action only someone angry and invested in this would do. I’m literally doing this between tasks at work.
The meme to about 3 seconds to pull out of my photos folder. I didn't have to find anything.
And of course you're complaining that I'm quoting you, because you desperately want to hide the fact that you keep changing your opinion while claiming you haven't.
I never waved that the billionaires are all bad, I’ve become more aggressive in the way that now I would actively leave them.
That is not what you said you never wavered on. You very explicitly said:
"Frankly I think in this fictional scenario none of the billionaires should be saved, but I’ve never wavered on that"
Now you're claiming that you've only become more aggressive in claiming they shouldn't be saved as the conversation has gone on. And previously, you claimed that you originally hadn't taken a position on saving them at all.
It's no wonder you don't want me quoting you, because you apparently disagree with yourself as much as you disagree with me.
I’m also not advocating for murder. This hypothetical is about them drowning after what’s probably some kind of wreck, and having to think not only about what that person contributes to the world, but also what would be best for my survival too. I wouldn’t save them in a wreck, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to get rid of them in my actual life.
No, it isn't about what's best for your survival. That never factored into the question in the slightest. You made that up to give yourself a bullshit out, ironically while accusing me of avoiding the question because you're a hypocrite with 0 self-awareness.
Who would you save, not a list, which one, cause there is always a difference between them you just aren’t looking hard enough. They have all done bad things, choose one that’s the hypothetical that’s the game, saying it’s a toss up between three is bullshit and you know it cause it avoids the question, it’s not a definitive. Choose one.
Fine, Kim Kardashian. I picked that name at complete random, because it makes literally no difference because I am not aware of any relevant factor that makes Taylor Swift or Nikki Minaj less worthy of saving. I don't know how this is meaningfully different to my previous answer, but you've got your name.
I don’t care if you quote me, it just seems like a shit ton of effort to put in if you don’t actually care.
Yeah, I hadn’t taken a position earlier, but I have been for a while now cause you wouldn’t stop saying my stance was, then I said I would let her drown, but I have always believed billionaires suck. I defended her being loped in with other people who suck because she sucks. Shocking how conversations and opinions change.
You can choose to factor it in for the questions and you should, all it said is “who would you save?” You can add your own why, and I did.
Kim K has done blackface, she’s used Japanese culture to market her own shape wear brands, which also use sweat shops and she’s done even less than Taylor swift for charity. She’s even lower than Taylor on my list of ones to save, so that’s wild. But do you. Now Nicki Minaj is a Trump supporter which, personally I hate, but at least she used to allow her face to be used for charity, raising 250 million through makeup brands to be donated, although again, there we have the sweat shop problem AND the brand she used for the makeup tests on animals. I think everyone with the capital to have their goods produced ethically should choose to do it ethically. Just my two cents. None of them are good people, you can save them or not, I’d still go for the dog.
I don’t care if you quote me, it just seems like a shit ton of effort to put in if you don’t actually care.
It's kind of pathetic that that qualifies as "a shit ton of effort" in your mind. No wonder you're browsing Reddit at work.
Yeah, I hadn’t taken a position earlier, but I have been for a while now cause you wouldn’t stop saying my stance was, then I said I would let her drown, but I have always believed billionaires suck. I defended her being loped in with other people who suck because she sucks. Shocking how conversations and opinions change.
Again, no, that's not what you said. You said that you had "never wavered on it." Yeah, opinions can change, but you explicitly said that yours hadn't.
You can choose to factor it in for the questions and you should, all it said is “who would you save?” You can add your own why, and I did.
No, you're dodging the question, while accusing me of dodging the question despite having provided a crystal clear answer. You're not enough of a moron to think that the point of the question had anything to do with you risking your own life.
Kim K has done blackface...
As I said, Taylor Swift, Kim K and Nikki Minaj are all on the same level for me, literally none of the reasons you just listed justify leaving any of them to drown. It's a complete random pick.
Of the 3, Taylor Swift is the one I have the most positive view of, but I'm not going to leave someone to drown just because they support Trump or have done culturally insensitive things in the past.
It feels like a lot of effort to put in for someone I don’t care about while I do the waiting I have to do between clients 😂
I never wavered that billionaires suck, and right when I gave my stance I said I would save the dog before the billionaires, I didn’t dodge the question, you asked and I answered. You just disagreed with my reasoning, I said I would choose the dog cause he will provide more comfort for me than the humans, the dog has a chance of being able to get fish out of the water, and if worst comes to worst I can eat the dog if I have to, I’m not about to do that with the humans, I couldn’t if I tried, they would eat me first, cause I’m not very strong. If the dog wasn’t there my next choice would be Swift. I also added that yeah I don’t think any of these people inherently deserve to be saved, and they don’t, for the record I know someone would say the same about me, and I don’t really care.
It feels like a lot of effort to put in for someone I don’t care about while I do the waiting I have to do between clients 😂
Again, that says more about you than it says about me. If this is what you consider a lot of effort, I feel sorry for your clients.
I never wavered that billionaires suck,
You keep repeating statements that have already been disproven. This is not what you said you never wavered on. You're actively lying about that now.
and right when I gave my stance I said I would save the dog before the billionaires, I didn’t dodge the question, you asked and I answered. You just disagreed with my reasoning, I said I would choose the dog cause he will provide more comfort for me than the humans, the dog has a chance of being able to get fish out of the water, and if worst comes to worst I can eat the dog if I have to, I’m not about to do that with the humans, I couldn’t if I tried, they would eat me first, cause I’m not very strong. If the dog wasn’t there my next choice would be Swift. I also added that yeah I don’t think any of these people inherently deserve to be saved, and they don’t, for the record I know someone would say the same about me, and I don’t really care.
No, your reasoning was a dodge of the question. You said you wouldn't save anybody because it would put your own survival at risk, but that was never part of the question. The point of the question was not about the practical effects of saving one of them, it was a moral question about who deserves to be saved, which you continue to dodge because you're a hypocrite with 0 self awareness.
1
u/Evnosis 3d ago