kasheD_


























  1. I think of Beyonce left Jay Z today, she would have NO PROBLEM with finding a man on HER LEVEL to marry her. Jay Z can get a young girl to date him. Many men on his level but do these girl add value or substance to his life? Can he hold an actual conversation with him? Will she be able to name his first album that he made when she wasn't even born?

  2. You keep saying I don't understand RP arguments. I don't need to because they are stupid. Beyonce loves her husband . I know loving someone is hard to understand in the Red Pill world but she actually loves her husband. Jay Z has mentioned in an interview himself, that he could never cheat again because he saw how bad he had hurt her AND she would never forgive him. It seems you missed that part and just pointed out the part when I said Beyonce sang it in her song. The person who actually did the cheating knows his wife and he know she would leave him. Studies say a lot of things about women and people have defied the odds. I don't care when a woman has a baby, that's her business. And there is more than one way to have a child.

  3. They got the examples all mixed up. Mj's example was of that a normal average earning guy which if he gets divorced will likely be not able to date because of the financial burden. However, hvm can afford this and that is why they are still at an advantage in the dating market. They only have to probably hustle more or get more income. The single mom on the other hand, yes financially they will get the better side of it. However when it comes to dating, it will be hard for them to attract the men they want cause of their baggage. Maybe, losers will like to have sugar mommies but let's face it, they don't want those men in the first place. Destiny should put those 2 separately cause they have significant effects on which aspect he is referring to.

  4. 100% and when Destiny realized his mistake he tried to ask the whole panel who has the advantage "just in general" instead of replying to what the RP guys were actually saying. He had to lump them together in order for his argument to work but they should be separated since Myron and MJ were specifically making that point.

  5. ok so im taking that as a no, destiny never used the term “real relationship”. so much for “this is Destiny’s language, not mine” lol

  6. im glad you were able to show me his usage of the term, but why did you even ask me for a definition if he had already explained what he meant by “real relationships”? like what are you even arguing against at this point

  7. How do you run so many Ubers? I assume you play with friends? Those can’t be soloed, right? I’ve never owned a single torch lol

  8. This was my 7th uber run. All were soloed on my fury druid.

  9. Yea I feel ya. I farm my own keys and sometimes I'll get 3 keys in 2 runs back to back while other times 10-15 runs nothing.

  10. What gear do you have I run a fury werewolf Druid and have never run Ubers

  11. I posted this before when I first did ubers but added in some updates:

  12. Not sure if you're willing to start a new char but I just began playing d2r 3-4 weeks ago and started on ladder from scratch. Always start with a sorc, I use meteorb build. The runewords leaf/stealth/insight on act2 merc can carry you pretty far.

  13. I got a Lo on Traderie for a 20/10 Pally torch just a few days ago. If that's any gauge.

  14. In the future if you go pre-buff by proccing fade with treachery in the river of flame, that should help a lot with meph.

  15. Oh yea that probably helps a lot. Meph was nearly one shotting me + the lag of entering portal / his minions, I would usually be dead by the time screen loaded. I'll need to make a treachery if I try this again.

  16. Wow dude.. i hate you. I've done over 100 runs and only got a badly rolled Andy's

  17. Yea I just got lucky. I've done about 10-15 more runs and I've gotten nothing.

  18. Yea I was kind of stuck on my fury druid so just farming with cheap sorc and got the Lo, pretty stoked.

  19. Thanks. It's an eth unique sacred rondache so alma negra unid.

  20. Hey thanks for the extra info much appreciated!

  21. I presume you grant yourself the privilege of deciding how much credibility Sam loses, and what opinions of his you're allowed to dismiss (despite their intellectual and moral merits). I'm simply claiming a similar privilege in your case.

  22. I guess we will have to disagree on the issue of credibility since I believe it matters. The same way Sam has distanced himself from Bret Weinstein and others. Their credibility was brought into question over certain ethical opinions they hold and Sam decided to cut them off because he understands the influence he has and thinks it's dangerous to platform them. He didn't evaluate their ethical opinions independent of each other, he made a blanket judgement call on their credibility and found it suspect.

  23. No... time can be measured. It exist with or without intelligent life to comprehend it/measure it.

  24. My point was there is a pattern here with Will, and a history people aren't aware of. I edited it to explain more and address what you are actually talking about

  25. Thanks for clarifying. Kind of a dumb point but didn't Will spend years making $ from calling Uncle Phil fat/bald? A little ironic.

  26. Hitting the person that you're supposed to be loving isn't love. Hitting someone else to defend thier honor I would consider an act of love.

  27. If it was a woman he wouldnt have slapped her in the first place because the general public wouldve viewed him as an abuser.

  28. Kind of my point... any defense of Will's assault because "the joke was distasteful" goes out the window if a woman had said it...

  29. It shouldn't and that's my entire point... people defending Will's terrible behavior are claiming it was justified because the joke was distasteful yet if a woman had made it the same people are saying he wouldn't have hit her... so then it wasn't about the joke.

  30. How the fuck is this even a question? You cannot physically assault someone over a joke.

  31. Things can only happen one way, the fact that we can turn back time to do things differently doesn't prove the lack of control. Or do you believe only the existence of multi-timelines can prove we have control/choice?

  32. Are you determined to waste time arguing with me or you can choose not to and stop at any time?

  33. Context straight up doesn't matter. That behavior was bullshit.

  34. There is no nuance to kicking a defenseless animal let alone so violently. And there sure as fuck isn't any nuance to police brutality in general. Nothing will ever convince me that a cop with a gun has the right to take a life.

  35. Got to love the cojones of a Freedom Fighter arguing that a cognitive anthropologist does not get tribalism.

  36. As I said I'm only going off this episode since that's all I've heard from them. Credentials are less useful in society today considering what we've seen from the likes of doctors/evolutionary biologists on covid. Christopher's definition of tribalism is utterly useless and just a language game as Sam said. I also think Sam said it best:

  37. By Sam's logic, no tribalism can exist on the Left for its members spend most of their time in-fighting. There's a reason why the expression "narcissism of small differences" exists, dammit!

  38. When someone links a blog to define two words I start to wonder. Again, Christopher's definition of tribalism is utterly useless. Every single reference of Sam's so-called bias was countered and explained. Christopher's own co-host even agreed with Sam when he talked in the beginning about how he understands the reactivity to the annoying left and acknowledged Sam's refusal to walk the line that he's "supposed" to walk in terms of his tribe.

  39. That's actually kind of messed up since the first printing only the first 700 copies were signed. So some people who bought this early during the first printing didn't get the signatures and now they came out with another 500 signed?

  40. I think you're confusing youtube comments for an actual argument that scenario 2 was self defense. It's a completely separate thing to celebrate that someone "got what they deserved" and to make the case that what the clerk did was self defense.

  41. My bad for not explaining well enough I said the laws in most states are more lenient on civilians defending themselves / their property as opposed to outright violence, not that it was ok or justified. It's a situation they would likely send up to grand jury, not just arrest and charge on. Likely, not always. Once they left and were fleeing he technically lost his chance to use deadly force. Whether a grand jury would true bill it as a homicide is anyone's guess. The clerk could articulate they did in fact pose an imminent threat of SBI or death to others I guess, but every grand jury is different. I couldn't make a hard stance either way without knowing all the evidence, which media reports are not.

  42. Thanks for the further explanation. I think what you're saying here sort of proves my point that it's less about the objective facts of the incidents and more about which grand jury presides over the case. As you said "but every grand jury is different". So I still submit that it's difficult to clearly see something distinguishing between the two.

  43. Why is the is-ought issue even important for Sam’s point? He can just admit his moral landscape is an ‘ought,’ and argue that we ought to do the obvious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *