Topic: 5% of the population pays over 63% of all the federal income taxes
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #124,079
And yet they only earned 24% of all income! Make it make sense!
The scary "tax cuts for the ultra wealthy" are almost always across-the-board tax cuts but they DO give more relief to the group who are paying the vast majority of the income taxes, in terms of raw dollars. The relief by percentage in this common scenario would be the same for all taxpayers
The scary "tax cuts for the ultra wealthy" are almost always across-the-board tax cuts but they DO give more relief to the group who are paying the vast majority of the income taxes, in terms of raw dollars. The relief by percentage in this common scenario would be the same for all taxpayers
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #1,350,396
middle class moment
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 42 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,397
yeah the very wealthy have teams of people to figure out how to minimize what of theirs is "income", chief
you can get pretty wealthy with all the power inherent in that, yet accounting wise, not have so much income somehow
you can get pretty wealthy with all the power inherent in that, yet accounting wise, not have so much income somehow
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,406
Tips and overtime pay are how the working class make money. Bless Trump.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,416
Poor lady pays tax with a cut of her meal, rich man pays tax with cut of his profits
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,824
Trump is going to make America great again. Cut taxes, fistfuck trannies, and put America before Ukraine. Go Trump!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,831
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,350,835
@1,350,824 (F)
we are literally only a month in and the lefties have deepthroated the glowniggers boots all the way to the knee. i cannot wait to see how much more unhinged they get.
we are literally only a month in and the lefties have deepthroated the glowniggers boots all the way to the knee. i cannot wait to see how much more unhinged they get.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 year later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,836
raping the middle class!
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 11 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,839
Wealthy people don’t actually have their net worth in cash. Their wealth comes from owning shares in their companies. They can arbitrarily decide to pay themselves whatever they want for tax purposes which is why they’ll do things like pay themselves $1 per year because they’re legally required to.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,841
There’s sort of multiple layers to it. They won’t pay themselves a salary so they won’t have to pay income tax, but they won’t sell their shares so they won’t have to pay capital gains tax, so they’ll borrow against their shares instead to avoid taxes as much as possible.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,850
Especially in my single days, taxes sent me down a libertarian streak for like a decade. It's like, shit, I sit in my studio apartment playing videogames while the country squanders the thousands they took from me. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have changed my life at all with that money, but I could have invested it for my own retirement instead of feeding pet projects and programs I'd never see the results of.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 5 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,877
@previous (J)
Well, I mean you spend your life working for the wealthy who have no patriotism, yet they can lobby politicians. When that happens in African countries do we call it lobbying or do we call it something else? There are billionaires in African countries, Nigeria has billionaires. Just because there’s wealth in a country doesn’t mean anything.
Well, I mean you spend your life working for the wealthy who have no patriotism, yet they can lobby politicians. When that happens in African countries do we call it lobbying or do we call it something else? There are billionaires in African countries, Nigeria has billionaires. Just because there’s wealth in a country doesn’t mean anything.
educator replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,891
@1,439,841 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
That isn't a loophole.
When you pay back the loan you need to sell stocks, which is taxable.
if you just keep rolling over the loan you will pay interest instead, until you die and the loan is paid out of your estate (still taxed here).
That isn't a loophole.
When you pay back the loan you need to sell stocks, which is taxable.
if you just keep rolling over the loan you will pay interest instead, until you die and the loan is paid out of your estate (still taxed here).
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,945
@previous (educator)
That's the trick, you see. You never pay back the loan and just keep paying interest. Nobody cares if they pay taxes after they die.
That's the trick, you see. You never pay back the loan and just keep paying interest. Nobody cares if they pay taxes after they die.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,961
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
People don't like taxes because they can't spend that money.
If you can never cash in your stocks, you also can't spend all your money.
It's the same problem, you just changed why you don't get the money.
People don't like taxes because they can't spend that money.
If you can never cash in your stocks, you also can't spend all your money.
It's the same problem, you just changed why you don't get the money.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,974
@previous (H)
To be fair, anybody who’s wealthy enough that they’re living off of money from borrowing against shares is probably rich enough they’re never going to need or spend most of their net worth in the first place.
To be fair, anybody who’s wealthy enough that they’re living off of money from borrowing against shares is probably rich enough they’re never going to need or spend most of their net worth in the first place.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,976
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Right, but you're still missing the point. They will never spend all that money anyway, which is why they wouldn't need to worry about those taxes.
Rich people aren't taking out loans so that taxes get converted into interest and then delay the taxation to when they die. There's no financial or practical reason for them to do that.
Right, but you're still missing the point. They will never spend all that money anyway, which is why they wouldn't need to worry about those taxes.
Rich people aren't taking out loans so that taxes get converted into interest and then delay the taxation to when they die. There's no financial or practical reason for them to do that.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,977
@previous (H)
Yeah, I agree with that. They still do it anyway. There’s no logical reason why someone needs 800 billion dollars. Elon Musk has an 800 billion dollar net worth. There have been studies that found apparently, more wealth increases your happiness up to earning about 2 million USD / year, then it has no effect on your happiness. The reason why people need to be that rich is because they can never be happy, it’s a psychological problem.
Yeah, I agree with that. They still do it anyway. There’s no logical reason why someone needs 800 billion dollars. Elon Musk has an 800 billion dollar net worth. There have been studies that found apparently, more wealth increases your happiness up to earning about 2 million USD / year, then it has no effect on your happiness. The reason why people need to be that rich is because they can never be happy, it’s a psychological problem.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,980
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
That's all beside the point we were discussing. Yes, billionares keep growing their wealth, even though it has no meaningful impact on happiness.
The idea that they take out loans because it gives them a financial gain is incorrect. That strategy would not work.
Why would a billionare, obsessed with growing their net worth, take out a loan they don't need and lose money to interest just to delay (but not eliminate) their taxes?
It's not to increase their net worth, because net worth accounts for debts. It's not to save money on taxes, because they still pay those taxes at some point. It's not because they want to pay interest on a loan they could replace with cash, because that's giving away money for nothing.
The factoid you shared has been debunked, thanks.
That's all beside the point we were discussing. Yes, billionares keep growing their wealth, even though it has no meaningful impact on happiness.
The idea that they take out loans because it gives them a financial gain is incorrect. That strategy would not work.
Why would a billionare, obsessed with growing their net worth, take out a loan they don't need and lose money to interest just to delay (but not eliminate) their taxes?
It's not to increase their net worth, because net worth accounts for debts. It's not to save money on taxes, because they still pay those taxes at some point. It's not because they want to pay interest on a loan they could replace with cash, because that's giving away money for nothing.
The factoid you shared has been debunked, thanks.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,981
@previous (H)
It’s so they don’t have to pay taxes. It’s not beside the point it’s directly related. They want to have as much money as possible. It’s not inherently rational, but everything they do that’s why.
It’s so they don’t have to pay taxes. It’s not beside the point it’s directly related. They want to have as much money as possible. It’s not inherently rational, but everything they do that’s why.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,982
They’re also technically not losing money on interest as long as their assets appreciate in value faster than the interest on their loan because they’re borrowing against their assets.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,983
Like, they’re losing money in that they would have more if they didn’t do that, but they’re not losing money in the sense that they’ll still have more than they started with.
Essentially, they just rig life for themselves.
Essentially, they just rig life for themselves.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,984
@1,439,981 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> It’s so they don’t have to pay taxes.
We literally just went over this, it doesn't save you on your taxes. It just delays the taxation year, plus you have to pay the interest now too.
> It’s not beside the point it’s directly related. They want to have as much money as possible. It’s not inherently rational, but everything they do that’s why.
I also just went over this. Given that it doesn't save them taxes really, and given that it adds to their costs because of interest...
Why would a person who is
a) obsessed with increasing their wealth
b) has a proven ability to carry out that obsession
Why would they use a strategy that does not reduce their taxes and does increase their interest costs?
If you don't remember why it doesn't reduce their taxes, I explained it here: @1,439,891 (educator)
> It’s so they don’t have to pay taxes.
We literally just went over this, it doesn't save you on your taxes. It just delays the taxation year, plus you have to pay the interest now too.
> It’s not beside the point it’s directly related. They want to have as much money as possible. It’s not inherently rational, but everything they do that’s why.
I also just went over this. Given that it doesn't save them taxes really, and given that it adds to their costs because of interest...
Why would a person who is
a) obsessed with increasing their wealth
b) has a proven ability to carry out that obsession
Why would they use a strategy that does not reduce their taxes and does increase their interest costs?
If you don't remember why it doesn't reduce their taxes, I explained it here: @1,439,891 (educator)
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,985
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,986
Like idk, the whole formula of ask a question, have the question answered, completely ignore the answer and frantically ask a bunch more questions on an infinite loop is a bit tired.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,987
@1,439,985 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
That would better describe a person who has had their factoid debunked multiple times and still continues to argue.
You do this every thread. Spout some obvious BS, and refuse to accept it when it's proven wrong, and then act like it's my problem for disproving you, rather than your problem for sharing misinformation and stubbornly refusing to accept that you're wrong.
That would better describe a person who has had their factoid debunked multiple times and still continues to argue.
You do this every thread. Spout some obvious BS, and refuse to accept it when it's proven wrong, and then act like it's my problem for disproving you, rather than your problem for sharing misinformation and stubbornly refusing to accept that you're wrong.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,988
@1,439,986 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Like when you ignored that it doesn't save you money on taxes, and then continued to act like it does while ignoring where I explained that it doesn't?
It would be on thing if you actually showed why I was wrong, but instead you just hope not engaging with that comment will allow you to keep useling the same flawed premise.
Like when you ignored that it doesn't save you money on taxes, and then continued to act like it does while ignoring where I explained that it doesn't?
It would be on thing if you actually showed why I was wrong, but instead you just hope not engaging with that comment will allow you to keep useling the same flawed premise.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,990
Yeah, I can tell you’re not interested in a genuine discussion, you’re just here to rage bait.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,991
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
No matter how easy it is to verify that you're wrong, you always refuse to admit it.
Any contradiction or debunking is "rage bait" because then you have an excuse to rage quit to the convo and avoid ever admitting you made a mistake.
No matter how easy it is to verify that you're wrong, you always refuse to admit it.
Any contradiction or debunking is "rage bait" because then you have an excuse to rage quit to the convo and avoid ever admitting you made a mistake.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,992
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,993
I get that you’re upset, just let it out. Just let it all out… come on… get it out of your system.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,994
@1,439,992 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
You use some excuse each time that ends up meaning the same thing.
If you're proved wrong you'll say something like "you'll never change your mind" or "debate is pointless" or some form of calling me a troll, or spamming strawman arguments.
What exactly do you think you'd lose if you cut your losses after you're disproven? If you see my post pointing out that capital gains taxes still kick in when you pay off the loan, and you have no idea how to get around that, why not just stop there?
Becuase you do the same thing each time, you just write another response like it's already eatablished and go off on some tangent hoping I don't notice.
You're a slave to your pride, and overcoming that would be more peace than you could know. Maybe too hard to do in person, but you're on an anonymous website.
You use some excuse each time that ends up meaning the same thing.
If you're proved wrong you'll say something like "you'll never change your mind" or "debate is pointless" or some form of calling me a troll, or spamming strawman arguments.
What exactly do you think you'd lose if you cut your losses after you're disproven? If you see my post pointing out that capital gains taxes still kick in when you pay off the loan, and you have no idea how to get around that, why not just stop there?
Becuase you do the same thing each time, you just write another response like it's already eatablished and go off on some tangent hoping I don't notice.
You're a slave to your pride, and overcoming that would be more peace than you could know. Maybe too hard to do in person, but you're on an anonymous website.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,995
@previous (H)
So then why do you think billionaires borrow against their assets rather than sell their shares?
So then why do you think billionaires borrow against their assets rather than sell their shares?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,997
I don’t even understand this whole reaction you’re having, a wealthy person would not care about this but it’s like you’re deeply offended on behalf of them somehow.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,998
@1,439,995 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Liquidity and leverage.
They got rich by investing more money than they had in businesses they were certain would get then bigger returns than they interest.
Liquidity and leverage.
They got rich by investing more money than they had in businesses they were certain would get then bigger returns than they interest.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,439,999
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 45 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,000
@1,439,997 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Me correcting you taking offense, or something else?
You constantly spread misinfo, and I don't mind correcting and explaining.
Taking offense looks more like spamming 10 posts in a row telling me you hate me and I'm your enemy or w/e.
Just like you accuse me of arguing after you keep trying to insist it saves on taxes when I pointed out you still get taxed. You could look up whether they waive taxes if you're repaying a loan and see that they don't but instead you just keep arguing.
You do something, and then accuse me of it.
Me correcting you taking offense, or something else?
You constantly spread misinfo, and I don't mind correcting and explaining.
Taking offense looks more like spamming 10 posts in a row telling me you hate me and I'm your enemy or w/e.
Just like you accuse me of arguing after you keep trying to insist it saves on taxes when I pointed out you still get taxed. You could look up whether they waive taxes if you're repaying a loan and see that they don't but instead you just keep arguing.
You do something, and then accuse me of it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,001
@previous (H)
If you’re not offended, why’d you write that in response to the accusation that you’re offended?
If you’re not offended, why’d you write that in response to the accusation that you’re offended?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 44 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,002
@1,439,999 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Opportunity cost. They invested in that business (the one they have shares in) because they think its a winner.
By taking out more loans, they can invest more (get more stocks) and make more money.
If you sell a stock you think will get 10% returns to buy a stock you think will get 11% you are barely making much money even if you are correct. If you take out a 5% loan instead, you have bigger gains.
Opportunity cost. They invested in that business (the one they have shares in) because they think its a winner.
By taking out more loans, they can invest more (get more stocks) and make more money.
If you sell a stock you think will get 10% returns to buy a stock you think will get 11% you are barely making much money even if you are correct. If you take out a 5% loan instead, you have bigger gains.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,003
@previous (H)
Okay. So what does the government do when you sell your shares that they don’t do when you take out a loan because capital gains is a form of income and debt isn’t?
Okay. So what does the government do when you sell your shares that they don’t do when you take out a loan because capital gains is a form of income and debt isn’t?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 25 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,004
@1,440,001 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Just like love, hate, logic, preposition, professor and so many other terms you don't seem to know what "offended" means.
Correcting someone, or explaining they they did what they accuse you of doing is not "taking offense".
Getting into a discussion, being contradicted, and thinking that is a personal attack is what it means to get offended.
Just like love, hate, logic, preposition, professor and so many other terms you don't seem to know what "offended" means.
Correcting someone, or explaining they they did what they accuse you of doing is not "taking offense".
Getting into a discussion, being contradicted, and thinking that is a personal attack is what it means to get offended.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 59 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,005
@previous (H)
If you think I don’t understand words, then why are you communicating to me with words? That seems pretty stupid.
If you think I don’t understand words, then why are you communicating to me with words? That seems pretty stupid.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,006
@1,440,003 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
The only difference is when they tax you.
How much they tax you is the same.
Think about it this way: Taxes are due April 15. If you file an extension, saying you need to review your books, what is different?
You pay your taxes later, but you don't actually avoid paying your taxes.
The only difference is when they tax you.
How much they tax you is the same.
Think about it this way: Taxes are due April 15. If you file an extension, saying you need to review your books, what is different?
You pay your taxes later, but you don't actually avoid paying your taxes.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 33 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,007
@previous (H)
Okay. So if you take out a loan against your assets, and your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans for your entire life, when do you pay back the loan?
Okay. So if you take out a loan against your assets, and your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans for your entire life, when do you pay back the loan?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,008
@1,440,005 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
It's not something I think, whenever we disagree about the meaning of the word the dictionary backs me up and not you.
Sometimes you even smugly show the very entry that backs me up without immediately realizing it!
Why do you write out walls of a text on a random BBS? Maybe it's pointless, but you clearly enjoy.
I enjoy correcting misinfo, and further debunking the half-baked theories leftists have for the world's problems.
If people don't understand how billionares take advantage of the system unfairly, they can't correct it. When you spread misinfo, it sets us back as a society. I'm doing my small part to fix that.
It's not something I think, whenever we disagree about the meaning of the word the dictionary backs me up and not you.
Sometimes you even smugly show the very entry that backs me up without immediately realizing it!
Why do you write out walls of a text on a random BBS? Maybe it's pointless, but you clearly enjoy.
I enjoy correcting misinfo, and further debunking the half-baked theories leftists have for the world's problems.
If people don't understand how billionares take advantage of the system unfairly, they can't correct it. When you spread misinfo, it sets us back as a society. I'm doing my small part to fix that.
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,009
@1,440,007 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Okay. So if you take out a loan against your assets, and your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans for your entire life, when do you pay back the loan?
That's up to the borrower, not sure what your point is here.
Why would it matter if the collateral appreciated faster? If my house appreciates faster than my mortgage interest, when do I pay off the mortgage? Those two things aren't really related.
> Okay. So if you take out a loan against your assets, and your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans for your entire life, when do you pay back the loan?
That's up to the borrower, not sure what your point is here.
Why would it matter if the collateral appreciated faster? If my house appreciates faster than my mortgage interest, when do I pay off the mortgage? Those two things aren't really related.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 20 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,010
@1,440,008 (H)
I told you that debate is pointless, but you don’t want to admit I’m right, so you have to keep talking to me like you think you can change my mind. It’s kinda funny looking at the trap you put yourself in.
I told you that debate is pointless, but you don’t want to admit I’m right, so you have to keep talking to me like you think you can change my mind. It’s kinda funny looking at the trap you put yourself in.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,011
@1,440,009 (H)
Yeah, it is up to the borrower. If their assets appreciate faster than the interest on their loans, when are they going to pay it back?
Yeah, it is up to the borrower. If their assets appreciate faster than the interest on their loans, when are they going to pay it back?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,012
The ideal time to pay it back, is when they notice their assets aren’t appreciating enough to keep up with the interest on their loans. What if that doesn’t happen for their entire life. When are they going to pay it back?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,013
You can say blah blah blah, they have to pay it back eventually and then there’s tax! They’re dead. You understand that right? The entire point is to live your entire life without paying taxes.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,014
@1,440,010 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I don't think you'll change your mind, but anyone reading through our threads can see you spout one easily debunked piece of misinfo after another, and then me debunking it.
It's for the audience I write. If I didn't, they'd only see your misinfo, and maybe it wouldn't occur to them why you're wrong, either.
Do this for enough topics and eventually people will realize the pattern. Leftists have no concern for the truth, only concern for pride.
I don't think you'll change your mind, but anyone reading through our threads can see you spout one easily debunked piece of misinfo after another, and then me debunking it.
It's for the audience I write. If I didn't, they'd only see your misinfo, and maybe it wouldn't occur to them why you're wrong, either.
Do this for enough topics and eventually people will realize the pattern. Leftists have no concern for the truth, only concern for pride.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 58 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,015
@1,440,011 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Yeah, it is up to the borrower. If their assets appreciate faster than the interest on their loans, when are they going to pay it back?
I already answered, it's up the borrower, what's your point?
Keep the conversation going, why are you asking me the same question I just answered?
> Yeah, it is up to the borrower. If their assets appreciate faster than the interest on their loans, when are they going to pay it back?
I already answered, it's up the borrower, what's your point?
Keep the conversation going, why are you asking me the same question I just answered?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 second later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,016
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 26 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,017
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,019
@1,440,013 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> You can say blah blah blah, they have to pay it back eventually and then there’s tax! They’re dead. You understand that right? The entire point is to live your entire life without paying taxes.
The pile of gold the amass will be taxed at some point. Their net worth accounts for loans.
If their net worth doesn't go up, their lifestyle doesn't change, and their estate is taxed all the same... what's different? Just the interest.
You are acting like they specifically want to avoid taxes during their life, but don't care about their estate being taxed, and they don't care about paying interest while they are alive.
That doesn't fit at all with the model we have of billionares. A successful, irrationally greedy billionare would hate the interest. Someone trying to create a legacy would know they are still taxed at death.
There's no coherant model of billionares morivations that would have them pushing taxes back at the cost of interest on billions of dollars. Not if they are comically greedy, not if they have grandioise dreams of legacy.
Your explanation just simply has too many flaws
> You can say blah blah blah, they have to pay it back eventually and then there’s tax! They’re dead. You understand that right? The entire point is to live your entire life without paying taxes.
The pile of gold the amass will be taxed at some point. Their net worth accounts for loans.
If their net worth doesn't go up, their lifestyle doesn't change, and their estate is taxed all the same... what's different? Just the interest.
You are acting like they specifically want to avoid taxes during their life, but don't care about their estate being taxed, and they don't care about paying interest while they are alive.
That doesn't fit at all with the model we have of billionares. A successful, irrationally greedy billionare would hate the interest. Someone trying to create a legacy would know they are still taxed at death.
There's no coherant model of billionares morivations that would have them pushing taxes back at the cost of interest on billions of dollars. Not if they are comically greedy, not if they have grandioise dreams of legacy.
Your explanation just simply has too many flaws
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,020
@previous (H)
Of course they want to specifically avoid taxes during their lifetime. Nobody pays taxes because they want to out of the goodness of their heart.
Of course they want to specifically avoid taxes during their lifetime. Nobody pays taxes because they want to out of the goodness of their heart.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,021
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,022
@previous (H)
They’re borrowing against their assets and their assets appreciate in value over time. If your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans, your net worth grows and you get to spend the money you borrowed as if it was your own money without having to sell your shares and pay capital gains tax.
They’re borrowing against their assets and their assets appreciate in value over time. If your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans, your net worth grows and you get to spend the money you borrowed as if it was your own money without having to sell your shares and pay capital gains tax.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,023
If you’re wealthy enough, ideally, your assets are worth so much you can live on a small fraction of your total net worth and even after you pay back the interest on your loan when you die, your heirs will still inherit your remaining assets.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,024
@1,440,022 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> They’re borrowing against their assets and their assets appreciate in value over time. If your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans, your net worth grows and you get to spend the money you borrowed as if it was your own money without having to sell your shares
Yes just like I said here: @1,440,002 (H)
They want to keep their investments appreciating rather than sell them.
I already said that as an altertnative explanation for why they take out the loans
> and pay capital gains tax.
What I actually asked is why you think they benefit from delaying those taxes.
It's not legacy, because the estate is taxed.
Not net worth as an egotistic score, because the loans are counted against that.
The only actual explanation is what I said in my cited comment here, that you rephrased as if you had the idea.
It was never taxes, they are still taxed at some point. The only actual explanation is that they think they can invest better than their interest rate. It has nothing to do with avoiding capital gains tax.
> They’re borrowing against their assets and their assets appreciate in value over time. If your assets appreciate faster than the interest on your loans, your net worth grows and you get to spend the money you borrowed as if it was your own money without having to sell your shares
Yes just like I said here: @1,440,002 (H)
They want to keep their investments appreciating rather than sell them.
I already said that as an altertnative explanation for why they take out the loans
> and pay capital gains tax.
What I actually asked is why you think they benefit from delaying those taxes.
It's not legacy, because the estate is taxed.
Not net worth as an egotistic score, because the loans are counted against that.
The only actual explanation is what I said in my cited comment here, that you rephrased as if you had the idea.
It was never taxes, they are still taxed at some point. The only actual explanation is that they think they can invest better than their interest rate. It has nothing to do with avoiding capital gains tax.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,025
@previous (H)
When you sell your assets you have to pay capital gains tax, when you borrow against your assets you don’t pay taxes on debt. It’s a scheme created to avoid paying taxes.
When you sell your assets you have to pay capital gains tax, when you borrow against your assets you don’t pay taxes on debt. It’s a scheme created to avoid paying taxes.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 20 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,026
Like you’re literally saying the point of doing the thing isn’t the reason for the thing.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 55 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,027
@1,440,023 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> If you’re wealthy enough, ideally, your assets are worth so much you can live on a small fraction of your total net worth
Yes, and we went over this.
If that's your situation, you are already eich enough that it doesn't matter to your lifestyle.
> and even after you pay back the interest on your loan when you die, your heirs will still inherit your remaining assets.
Your heirs will get it from the estate, which pays all those capital gains taxes when it sells shares to pay off outstanding loans.
If you are building a legacy, and providing for your heirs, delaying taxes until death doesn't help them one bit. You would just be reducing the inheritance because of the interest on the loans.
> If you’re wealthy enough, ideally, your assets are worth so much you can live on a small fraction of your total net worth
Yes, and we went over this.
If that's your situation, you are already eich enough that it doesn't matter to your lifestyle.
> and even after you pay back the interest on your loan when you die, your heirs will still inherit your remaining assets.
Your heirs will get it from the estate, which pays all those capital gains taxes when it sells shares to pay off outstanding loans.
If you are building a legacy, and providing for your heirs, delaying taxes until death doesn't help them one bit. You would just be reducing the inheritance because of the interest on the loans.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 49 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,028
You can’t seriously believe "oh yeah billionaires came up with this scheme to pay themselves where they don’t have to pay taxes during their lifetime but oh it’s totally not because of taxes that’s just an accident." Come on, this is ridiculous.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 29 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,029
@1,440,025 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> When you sell your assets you have to pay capital gains tax, when you borrow against your assets you don’t pay taxes on debt.
You pay the tax just the same when you pay off the loans.
You gave the example of heirs, but those heirs would see the money vanish from the estate when the estate had to sell, and pay the capital gains tax, to repay outstanding loans.
> It’s a scheme created to avoid paying taxes.
It doesn't avoid taxes, it delays them.
> When you sell your assets you have to pay capital gains tax, when you borrow against your assets you don’t pay taxes on debt.
You pay the tax just the same when you pay off the loans.
You gave the example of heirs, but those heirs would see the money vanish from the estate when the estate had to sell, and pay the capital gains tax, to repay outstanding loans.
> It’s a scheme created to avoid paying taxes.
It doesn't avoid taxes, it delays them.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,030
@1,440,028 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
No, that's a strawman, I never said it was an "accident" whatever that would mean.
I said multiple times it was to invest the money higher than the interest rate and it has nothing to do with avoiding capital gains tax.
No, that's a strawman, I never said it was an "accident" whatever that would mean.
I said multiple times it was to invest the money higher than the interest rate and it has nothing to do with avoiding capital gains tax.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,031
@1,440,029 (H)
You pay the tax when you’re fucking dead! You never pay the tax. That’s why they do it. Dead people can’t own things.
You pay the tax when you’re fucking dead! You never pay the tax. That’s why they do it. Dead people can’t own things.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,032
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> You pay the tax when you’re fucking dead! You never pay the tax. That’s why they do it. Dead people can’t own things.
You just gave passing it to heirs as an example.
If that was the goal, you failed, because those taxes are taken before anything goes to the heirs.
If the goal is to increase your lifestyle when you are alive, it doesn't matter either way because you can afford everything anyway.
> You pay the tax when you’re fucking dead! You never pay the tax. That’s why they do it. Dead people can’t own things.
You just gave passing it to heirs as an example.
If that was the goal, you failed, because those taxes are taken before anything goes to the heirs.
If the goal is to increase your lifestyle when you are alive, it doesn't matter either way because you can afford everything anyway.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 11 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,033
The level of narcissism you have combined with the level of stupid is something else.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,034
"BuT thEy PaY TaXeS aFtEr tHeY diE sO thEy CanT bE aVoiDinG TaXes"
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,035
@1,440,033 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
You keep repeating the same debunked arguments like I haven't explained multiple times already.
At the very leaat pick up where we left off on that thread instead of acting like its new.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Yes, since YOU gave the examples of heirs, that actually does matter.
If a billionare wanted to pass down the money, getting taxed at death is no better than getting taxed during his life.
If it's no better, why would the billionares do it?
You keep repeating the same debunked arguments like I haven't explained multiple times already.
At the very leaat pick up where we left off on that thread instead of acting like its new.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Yes, since YOU gave the examples of heirs, that actually does matter.
If a billionare wanted to pass down the money, getting taxed at death is no better than getting taxed during his life.
If it's no better, why would the billionares do it?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,036
@previous (H)
I can see why you’re racist, if I was as stupid as you, I’d need to be racist too. The closest you will ever come to somebody calling you smart is indirectly by reading Nazis on 4chan saying whites have high IQs and thinking they’re talking about you because you’re white even though they’ve never heard of you.
I can see why you’re racist, if I was as stupid as you, I’d need to be racist too. The closest you will ever come to somebody calling you smart is indirectly by reading Nazis on 4chan saying whites have high IQs and thinking they’re talking about you because you’re white even though they’ve never heard of you.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,037
@1,440,034 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
If they didn't care about what happened once their dead, they would just spend all the money while thy were alive.
If they didn't care about what happened once their dead, they would just spend all the money while thy were alive.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,038
@1,440,036 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
So you can't ever finish that line of thought?
They avoid taxes while they are alive, to pay them when they die, even though they want to support the heirs, and it's better to be taxed at death because...?
You get stuck on one of these threads, change the subject and then bring it up later from the start rather than picking up on the part you got stuck at.
And like every other thread, once you've tried looping through a few different threads you got stuck at you realize you can't finish any of them and start insulting me and derailing the topic.
Do you realize how obvious this is? Anyone can see that you avoid simple questions at the end of one particular thread and then restart another one fresh only to repeat the same exact steps as last time.
Going off on some emotional hateful consecutive spamposting doesn't make you look smart, it's clearly how you cope with losing.
So you can't ever finish that line of thought?
They avoid taxes while they are alive, to pay them when they die, even though they want to support the heirs, and it's better to be taxed at death because...?
You get stuck on one of these threads, change the subject and then bring it up later from the start rather than picking up on the part you got stuck at.
And like every other thread, once you've tried looping through a few different threads you got stuck at you realize you can't finish any of them and start insulting me and derailing the topic.
Do you realize how obvious this is? Anyone can see that you avoid simple questions at the end of one particular thread and then restart another one fresh only to repeat the same exact steps as last time.
Going off on some emotional hateful consecutive spamposting doesn't make you look smart, it's clearly how you cope with losing.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,039
The same pattern in all of niganons topics.
Find 3-4 ways to justify a thesis. But on each one, he gets stuck and tries to hide it by switching to the next justification until he gets stuck there too.
Once he's had to dip out of all 4 lines of justification for the belief, he restarts with #1 again. Not picking up where it left off, but acting like it's a new idea, only to repeat the conversation verbatim until he's stuck again, and moves on to redoing justification #2.
He does this over and over getting angrier until he decides to switch to random personal attacks.
It's very obvious how this works, and an intelligent person would recognize how it all looks and cut his losses, but niganon can mever admit he's wrong.
Find 3-4 ways to justify a thesis. But on each one, he gets stuck and tries to hide it by switching to the next justification until he gets stuck there too.
Once he's had to dip out of all 4 lines of justification for the belief, he restarts with #1 again. Not picking up where it left off, but acting like it's a new idea, only to repeat the conversation verbatim until he's stuck again, and moves on to redoing justification #2.
He does this over and over getting angrier until he decides to switch to random personal attacks.
It's very obvious how this works, and an intelligent person would recognize how it all looks and cut his losses, but niganon can mever admit he's wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,040
Ah… but you’re not offended though so everything’s good, right?
😀👍
😀👍
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,041
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Is it? You got offended and started calling me stupid and narcissistic, so clearly you have some problem.
Is it? You got offended and started calling me stupid and narcissistic, so clearly you have some problem.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 29 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,048
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 26 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,053
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Narcissists don't just go aroundcorrecting people in an even-tempered manner.
Narcissists will be talking about ideas and think that a difference in belief is a matter of personal honor. They will act like they've been attacked when someone disagrees with them.
You are playing out the characteristics of a narcissist, and then accusing me of doing it when I really just focus on explaining why you were wrong.
At least accusing me of being autistic made some sense, autistic people will correct others plainly without much regard for social implications.
But the narcissistic accusation doesn't fit the clinical criteria. How you act does, because you are never able to seperate a discussion of ideas from your personal feelings. You will never admit you were wrong because that would be like surrendering in a fight, and that's how narcissists see disagreements.
Narcissists don't just go aroundcorrecting people in an even-tempered manner.
Narcissists will be talking about ideas and think that a difference in belief is a matter of personal honor. They will act like they've been attacked when someone disagrees with them.
You are playing out the characteristics of a narcissist, and then accusing me of doing it when I really just focus on explaining why you were wrong.
At least accusing me of being autistic made some sense, autistic people will correct others plainly without much regard for social implications.
But the narcissistic accusation doesn't fit the clinical criteria. How you act does, because you are never able to seperate a discussion of ideas from your personal feelings. You will never admit you were wrong because that would be like surrendering in a fight, and that's how narcissists see disagreements.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,055
@previous (H)
It’s kind of hard for me to admit something that isn’t true. That would be called lying.
It’s kind of hard for me to admit something that isn’t true. That would be called lying.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,056
Don’t get me wrong, if you had been a better person, we wouldn’t have issues. But you started from the position that I’m inferior because I’m black, and I don’t know what you were expecting. I know you don’t understand what I just said, so feel free to ignore it.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,057
I mean for crying out loud chimpanzees have a theory of mind and you can’t understand anything from my perspective. You can’t even understand me from your own perspective. Your claims about me contradict your own behavior.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,058
@1,440,055 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
And how do you determine something is true?
By how it feels?
Or by a methodical, deterministic process?
And how do you determine something is true?
By how it feels?
Or by a methodical, deterministic process?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,059
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,060
You gave me two possible answers, I know in the past, if I tell you something is morally wrong, you don’t care, and if I tell you something is wrong for logical reasons, you use emotion to justify your stance. So I think the answer is the opposite of whatever I say, because you decide that after I give my answer. So I won’t answer.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,061
Do you have any more fake questions you don’t want to hear the answer to?
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,062
@1,440,056 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I've been willing to respond to your points, I never ignored or dismissed your arguments based on your (claimed) race.
@1,440,057 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I understand, you've made it clear you choose beliefs based on what fits you. You've openly said you rejected beliefs because of what they would mean for you as a black person.
> You can’t even understand me from your own perspective.
You clearly don't understand my perspective because you always put things into a personal framing, and that's clearly not how I choose my beliefs or how I discuss any of these topics.
This isn't personal for me. It's about following strict epistemic processes.
And the kicker is, a strawman argument, if it's not an intentional sophism, is a clear indicator you don't understand someone else's perspective and you have specifically had this be your #1 fallacy in most of our discussions.
You consistently fail to understand my motives. A narcisssist would not talk the way I talk, or respond to what I respond to. Even when I've asked in the past if you knew what my position was, you failed to rephrase comments that were avialable to you, and just rehashed your strawman.
In this thread at least you avoided the strawmen, but your #1 issue is lack of empathy (not sympathy, not compassion, but empathy).
I've been willing to respond to your points, I never ignored or dismissed your arguments based on your (claimed) race.
@1,440,057 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I understand, you've made it clear you choose beliefs based on what fits you. You've openly said you rejected beliefs because of what they would mean for you as a black person.
> You can’t even understand me from your own perspective.
You clearly don't understand my perspective because you always put things into a personal framing, and that's clearly not how I choose my beliefs or how I discuss any of these topics.
This isn't personal for me. It's about following strict epistemic processes.
And the kicker is, a strawman argument, if it's not an intentional sophism, is a clear indicator you don't understand someone else's perspective and you have specifically had this be your #1 fallacy in most of our discussions.
You consistently fail to understand my motives. A narcisssist would not talk the way I talk, or respond to what I respond to. Even when I've asked in the past if you knew what my position was, you failed to rephrase comments that were avialable to you, and just rehashed your strawman.
In this thread at least you avoided the strawmen, but your #1 issue is lack of empathy (not sympathy, not compassion, but empathy).
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,063
@1,440,059 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Am I supposed to answer that, or do you want to tell me instead?
It's a genuine question, I want to know what your answer is.
And if the answer is "methodical/deterministic" then the follow up would be which method.
> Am I supposed to answer that, or do you want to tell me instead?
It's a genuine question, I want to know what your answer is.
And if the answer is "methodical/deterministic" then the follow up would be which method.
Anonymous H triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,064
@1,440,060 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> You gave me two possible answers, I know in the past, if I tell you something is morally wrong, you don’t care
Not true, I actively engage and explain my position if you have a moral disagreement.
If I didn't care, I'd ignore it like you often do. Frequently you will ask me a question that I preemptively answered already.
> and if I tell you something is wrong for logical reasons, you use emotion to justify your stance.
Want to give one example?
> So I think the answer is the opposite of whatever I say, because you decide that after I give my answer. So I won’t answer.
No, my answer is methodical/deterministic is better.
Forming beliefs based on how you feel is a less developed way of thinking.
> You gave me two possible answers, I know in the past, if I tell you something is morally wrong, you don’t care
Not true, I actively engage and explain my position if you have a moral disagreement.
If I didn't care, I'd ignore it like you often do. Frequently you will ask me a question that I preemptively answered already.
> and if I tell you something is wrong for logical reasons, you use emotion to justify your stance.
Want to give one example?
> So I think the answer is the opposite of whatever I say, because you decide that after I give my answer. So I won’t answer.
No, my answer is methodical/deterministic is better.
Forming beliefs based on how you feel is a less developed way of thinking.
Anonymous H quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,065
@1,440,061 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
You will often avoid the simplest questions, even if I ask multiple times.
Do I ever do the same?
If you ask me a serious question (and not some loaded question like "why are you so stupid?") I will write out a response. If I miss it for some reason, you could ask it again. I never avoid plain, straightforward questions over and over like you do.
You will often avoid the simplest questions, even if I ask multiple times.
Do I ever do the same?
If you ask me a serious question (and not some loaded question like "why are you so stupid?") I will write out a response. If I miss it for some reason, you could ask it again. I never avoid plain, straightforward questions over and over like you do.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 3 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,066
Of course, I think you would like to say that you prefer determinism. However, your views on cultural preservation ignore economic and demographic realities and are based purely on reactionary emotion, so I don’t think you really believe this. I don’t believe that you are honest about any of your beliefs. I think if you were truly open and honest, you would say that you believe in nothing, you stand for nothing, and there is no point to anyone else. Nothing in the universe has a reason. Every effect has a cause, and you can use logic to understand these cause and effect pairs individually, but when you go back further and further along the chain of cause and effect, you know there’s nothing at the end of that chain. You know that there is no point to reality. Things are because they are. And you want to believe that because you’re observing it that means you have a purpose or that you have some value. But you don’t have a purpose and you don’t have a value, and you hate that, so you resent me instead. But resenting me is unsatisfying because I never give you what you want, because I’m smart enough to understand what you want.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,067
@1,440,065 (H)
I don’t ask plain straightforward questions because I’m not interested in things that are plain and straightforward because they’re obvious. You’re obsessed with definitions, but definitions are nothing. An egg is defined as an egg. A brick is defined as a brick. It requires no intelligence at all.
I don’t ask plain straightforward questions because I’m not interested in things that are plain and straightforward because they’re obvious. You’re obsessed with definitions, but definitions are nothing. An egg is defined as an egg. A brick is defined as a brick. It requires no intelligence at all.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,068
Surely it’s a nice lie to tell yourself that I’m inferior to you, and that’s why I never give you what I want. The truth is I’m so unsatisfying to you because I know exactly what I want and I don’t like you.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,069
I want you to submit to me, and I’m not submitting to you because I know I want you to submit to me. That’s why I’m not doing it. You’ve told me exactly what you want so many times, and I’m never doing it.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,070
@1,440,066 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I don't resent you, because I'm not a narcissist focused on interpersonal drama. I care about the truth, but no matter how many times I say that, or write with a singleminded focus on it, you try to put me in the same frame you're in.
Saying people should form beliefs based on a methodical or deterministic process is not the same thing as suggesting the universe is deterministic (though I do believe it is, that's a different topic).
I'm saying you could take my worldview as a complicated flowchart. Who I'm talking with isn't really important, there are ways of evaluating the ideas themselves.
@1,440,067 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Definitions matter when you are communicating with others. If you make up your own definition for something, you break down the communication.
When people use different definitions and don't clarify, they might think they are talking about the same thing, but they aren't. Many "disagreements" form from this.
Words without definitions have no meaning, it's the definition that really matters.
You have a habit of redefining words in a way that matches no dictionary, and then expecting people to just know what you are talking about.
@1,440,068 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I don't want anything from you, I just want to correct errors.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> I want you to submit to me
This is what I mean when I say you have narcissistic tendencies.
If you were like me, this would be a mere analysis of the arguments, and a review of the supporting evidence.
But you always go off on these extremely personal, hateful tirades that are triggered first by me disagreeing about some difference of ideas that has nothing to do with interpersonal differences.
> and I’m not submitting to you because I know I want you to submit to me. That’s why I’m not doing it. You’ve told me exactly what you want so many times, and I’m never doing it.
If you think admitting you were wrong is submitting to someone, you are a narcisssist.
I've said things that were wrong before, and been corrected. Sometimes it took me a moment to realize. But once I did, I just admitted it and changed my mind, no big deal.
It is extremely unhealthy to think the way you do, because it leads to people digging in and doubling down on incorrect beliefs because they think the most important thing is your original belief being right.
That mindset is needlesly confrontational, and leads to a model of the world that is increasingly out of step with reality because you are just trying to stubbornly avoid admitting you have flaws.
I don't resent you, because I'm not a narcissist focused on interpersonal drama. I care about the truth, but no matter how many times I say that, or write with a singleminded focus on it, you try to put me in the same frame you're in.
Saying people should form beliefs based on a methodical or deterministic process is not the same thing as suggesting the universe is deterministic (though I do believe it is, that's a different topic).
I'm saying you could take my worldview as a complicated flowchart. Who I'm talking with isn't really important, there are ways of evaluating the ideas themselves.
@1,440,067 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Definitions matter when you are communicating with others. If you make up your own definition for something, you break down the communication.
When people use different definitions and don't clarify, they might think they are talking about the same thing, but they aren't. Many "disagreements" form from this.
Words without definitions have no meaning, it's the definition that really matters.
You have a habit of redefining words in a way that matches no dictionary, and then expecting people to just know what you are talking about.
@1,440,068 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I don't want anything from you, I just want to correct errors.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> I want you to submit to me
This is what I mean when I say you have narcissistic tendencies.
If you were like me, this would be a mere analysis of the arguments, and a review of the supporting evidence.
But you always go off on these extremely personal, hateful tirades that are triggered first by me disagreeing about some difference of ideas that has nothing to do with interpersonal differences.
> and I’m not submitting to you because I know I want you to submit to me. That’s why I’m not doing it. You’ve told me exactly what you want so many times, and I’m never doing it.
If you think admitting you were wrong is submitting to someone, you are a narcisssist.
I've said things that were wrong before, and been corrected. Sometimes it took me a moment to realize. But once I did, I just admitted it and changed my mind, no big deal.
It is extremely unhealthy to think the way you do, because it leads to people digging in and doubling down on incorrect beliefs because they think the most important thing is your original belief being right.
That mindset is needlesly confrontational, and leads to a model of the world that is increasingly out of step with reality because you are just trying to stubbornly avoid admitting you have flaws.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,071
@previous (H)
If you believe the universe is deterministic, you are wrong about absolutely everything.
If you believe the universe is deterministic, you are wrong about absolutely everything.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 41 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,072
By the way, I was writing from your perspective not mine.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,073
@1,440,070 (H)
> Definitions matter when you are communicating with others. If you make up your own definition for something, you break down the communication.
You do realize that neurotypical people don’t interpret everything literally. If you get confused by that type of thing you’re probably autistic. Nobody else has that problem with me on here except for you specifically because everybody else talks the way I do.
> Definitions matter when you are communicating with others. If you make up your own definition for something, you break down the communication.
You do realize that neurotypical people don’t interpret everything literally. If you get confused by that type of thing you’re probably autistic. Nobody else has that problem with me on here except for you specifically because everybody else talks the way I do.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,074
You also have to realize that language doesn’t come from dictionaries. People write definitions in dictionaries based on how they notice people are using words. Dictionaries aren’t completely accurate. There are endless ways you could rephrase the definition of any given word and all those different ways of phrasing the same thing will be interpreted slightly differently. That’s why different dictionaries don’t have identical definitions for every word otherwise they’d be the same dictionary.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,075
@1,440,073 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
Most people are bad communicators. They have a discussion where everyone means something completely different by a word, only for both sides to think the other misinderstands something basic and obvious.
You can't get to the root of an issue unless you actually understand the other person.
Most people just don't care about these topics, and will nod or give a plithy line and mov eon to something else.
I care, and you care based on your investment in these threads, but you gloss over important details and abow no sign you understand why they matter.
You rarely even know what my position is, because you apply your own definitions plus you add in entire segments that I never said. When I point this out, you act like it doesn't matter that you are responding to something I never said.
The world is really not so subjective, it's not hard to reach a consensus. If people used clear language and had patience most disagreements would be very easy to resolve.
Most people are bad communicators. They have a discussion where everyone means something completely different by a word, only for both sides to think the other misinderstands something basic and obvious.
You can't get to the root of an issue unless you actually understand the other person.
Most people just don't care about these topics, and will nod or give a plithy line and mov eon to something else.
I care, and you care based on your investment in these threads, but you gloss over important details and abow no sign you understand why they matter.
You rarely even know what my position is, because you apply your own definitions plus you add in entire segments that I never said. When I point this out, you act like it doesn't matter that you are responding to something I never said.
The world is really not so subjective, it's not hard to reach a consensus. If people used clear language and had patience most disagreements would be very easy to resolve.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,076
LLMs don’t even use definitions, tokens are represented as vectors in high dimensional space and their location in space is correlated with meaning based on their distance from other tokens. There are multiple valid ways of arranging tokens into a high dimensional space. Natural language is imprecise and fuzzy. There’s a reason why computers, which are deterministic machines are programmed in machine code, languages that are translated into machine code, or languages that are interpreted by programs which have been compiled into machine code.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 28 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,077
@1,440,075 (H)
Most people aren’t bad communicators, you just can’t understand most people because most people are smarter than you.
Most people aren’t bad communicators, you just can’t understand most people because most people are smarter than you.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,080
@1,440,074 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> You also have to realize that language doesn’t come from dictionaries. People write definitions in dictionaries based on how they notice people are using words.
And if one person is using one of the dictionaries definitions, they are actually using the word in a way people really use it.
If one person keeps using words in a way that doesn't match any definition, and just expects others to know what they mean, they are expecting mind reading.
The latter wouldn't even be an issue if someone clarified what their personal definition is, but that would pin down their ideas an open them up to being caught in a contradiction. You refuse to explain your own personal definitions because being clear would reveal the flaw you made in your reasoning.
> Dictionaries aren’t completely accurate. There are endless ways you could rephrase the definition of any given word and all those different ways of phrasing the same thing will be interpreted slightly differently. That’s why different dictionaries don’t have identical definitions for every word otherwise they’d be the same dictionary.
This has never been the problem here.
If it's close to a definition, whatever. If it's nowhere in the dictionary, but you can say what you mean by it, even that works.
But when you make up your own defintion, and refuse to explain it even when asked, it's just a way to maintain vagueness so you can pretend you meant something else later to save face.
There is no discussion without shared language, even if that means explaining terms on the fly. That laborious, but you are the one using nonstandard definitions.
It should be a bit suspicious when one person always has their own made up definitions, and refuses to explain them. Like they are acting as if they want to communicate, but are careful to ensure real communication is impossible.
> You also have to realize that language doesn’t come from dictionaries. People write definitions in dictionaries based on how they notice people are using words.
And if one person is using one of the dictionaries definitions, they are actually using the word in a way people really use it.
If one person keeps using words in a way that doesn't match any definition, and just expects others to know what they mean, they are expecting mind reading.
The latter wouldn't even be an issue if someone clarified what their personal definition is, but that would pin down their ideas an open them up to being caught in a contradiction. You refuse to explain your own personal definitions because being clear would reveal the flaw you made in your reasoning.
> Dictionaries aren’t completely accurate. There are endless ways you could rephrase the definition of any given word and all those different ways of phrasing the same thing will be interpreted slightly differently. That’s why different dictionaries don’t have identical definitions for every word otherwise they’d be the same dictionary.
This has never been the problem here.
If it's close to a definition, whatever. If it's nowhere in the dictionary, but you can say what you mean by it, even that works.
But when you make up your own defintion, and refuse to explain it even when asked, it's just a way to maintain vagueness so you can pretend you meant something else later to save face.
There is no discussion without shared language, even if that means explaining terms on the fly. That laborious, but you are the one using nonstandard definitions.
It should be a bit suspicious when one person always has their own made up definitions, and refuses to explain them. Like they are acting as if they want to communicate, but are careful to ensure real communication is impossible.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,081
@previous (H)
Literally nobody else I’ve ever talked to in my entire life has had a problem with the way I speak except for you specifically. The problem isn’t everyone else, the problem is you. You’re probably just autistic so you interpret everything way too literally and get confused.
Literally nobody else I’ve ever talked to in my entire life has had a problem with the way I speak except for you specifically. The problem isn’t everyone else, the problem is you. You’re probably just autistic so you interpret everything way too literally and get confused.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,082
Nobody else is confused by anything I say. In fact, nobody in this entire thread even agreed with you.
You spent this whole time arguing with me and didn’t even notice that someone else said exactly what I said before I said it but you got upset with me instead of them.
@1,439,945 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> That's the trick, you see. You never pay back the loan and just keep paying interest. Nobody cares if they pay taxes after they die.
You spent this whole time arguing with me and didn’t even notice that someone else said exactly what I said before I said it but you got upset with me instead of them.
@1,439,945 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
> That's the trick, you see. You never pay back the loan and just keep paying interest. Nobody cares if they pay taxes after they die.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 14 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,083
@1,440,077 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I've been in many situations where I can tell others are using different definitions, don't notice it, and it's only when I say "well do we mean a le b by this" that the other realize they were talking about different things.
I've saved myself a lot of hassle by being clear when I talk with people I'm doing business with or in a relationship with.
It's not smart to be vague, and avoid checking. Miscommunication is notorious for causing problems. It's basically the start of all sitcom plots, and people relate for a reason.
I also notice that most people, in person, don't care about elaborating what they mean by a word. You will repeatedly refuse, which makes it clear you think being vague is a strategy to avoid losing, which you think is some sort of submission.
I've been in many situations where I can tell others are using different definitions, don't notice it, and it's only when I say "well do we mean a le b by this" that the other realize they were talking about different things.
I've saved myself a lot of hassle by being clear when I talk with people I'm doing business with or in a relationship with.
It's not smart to be vague, and avoid checking. Miscommunication is notorious for causing problems. It's basically the start of all sitcom plots, and people relate for a reason.
I also notice that most people, in person, don't care about elaborating what they mean by a word. You will repeatedly refuse, which makes it clear you think being vague is a strategy to avoid losing, which you think is some sort of submission.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,084
@previous (H)
I think it would do you a lot of good to accept that you might not be neurotypical and some of the issues you have with other people might be due to a difference with you and not something wrong with everybody else in the world.
I think it would do you a lot of good to accept that you might not be neurotypical and some of the issues you have with other people might be due to a difference with you and not something wrong with everybody else in the world.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,085
@1,440,082 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> Nobody else is confused by anything I say.
If someone asks you what you mean in school, do you lash out and say "you can't control me, I won't define that word" or do you just tell them?
>
> Nobody else is confused by anything I say.
If someone asks you what you mean in school, do you lash out and say "you can't control me, I won't define that word" or do you just tell them?
>
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 20 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,086
Really, I wasn’t wrong, you just saw me saying something and you got emotional, so you decided to start arguing with me even though somebody else in this thread said exactly what I said before I said it in agreement with them. You’re just a bratty emotional autistic guy.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,087
@1,440,084 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
I get along well in the world, most people are fine with clarifying communication. Especially if you give a quick insight into why it matters.
When I encounter someone in person who sabotages communication (by refusing to clarify when it matters or any other way) I usually just avoid those people.
There's a lot of people that just want to cooperate and get things done right, it's easy to surround myself with those types.
It's a good excercise to talk to combative narcissists, but only online. No need to deal with that in person where the costs outweigh the exercises benefits.
I get along well in the world, most people are fine with clarifying communication. Especially if you give a quick insight into why it matters.
When I encounter someone in person who sabotages communication (by refusing to clarify when it matters or any other way) I usually just avoid those people.
There's a lot of people that just want to cooperate and get things done right, it's easy to surround myself with those types.
It's a good excercise to talk to combative narcissists, but only online. No need to deal with that in person where the costs outweigh the exercises benefits.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 8 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,088
Actually, not just one person, two people said it before I said it, and you got upset with me and kept saying over and over you’re not offended. It’s so obvious you just saw me and were offended by past interactions so you decided to throw a temper tantrum. It’s pathetic.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,089
@1,440,086 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
This is a good time to clarify.
What is the criteria for "emotional" here?
This is a good time to clarify.
What is the criteria for "emotional" here?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade replied with this 1 month ago, 9 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,090
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 47 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,091
@1,440,089 (H)
You attacked me for something two other people said first and claimed that you’re not offended by me.
You attacked me for something two other people said first and claimed that you’re not offended by me.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,092
I mean, this is absurd. Two people literally said what I said before I said it and you just spent a hundred comments trying to act like you’re superior to me. You’re a failure of a human being. You have to realize how absolutely retarded you look.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,094
@1,440,091 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> You attacked me
No, I disagreed with you.
Thinking you are being attacked is what "being offended" means. Look up the word.
People that thinking disagreements are personal attacks are often narcissists. Narcissists can't seperate the two, so any disagreement becomes personal.
> for something two other people said first and claimed that you’re not offended by me.
Disagreeing is not the same thing as being offended.
If others don't take my side, that's still not "being offended".
When people are offended they say things like "you attacked me" to describe someone disagreeing with them.
> You attacked me
No, I disagreed with you.
Thinking you are being attacked is what "being offended" means. Look up the word.
People that thinking disagreements are personal attacks are often narcissists. Narcissists can't seperate the two, so any disagreement becomes personal.
> for something two other people said first and claimed that you’re not offended by me.
Disagreeing is not the same thing as being offended.
If others don't take my side, that's still not "being offended".
When people are offended they say things like "you attacked me" to describe someone disagreeing with them.
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,095
I'm going to go, but you should stop sometime and consider why all the books where we record what words mean disagree about how you use words whn it comes to important topics.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,096
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 23 seconds later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,097
I really wish she did.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,098
I talked to a pedophile before, I will say, as evil as they were, they were less broken than you are. You’re not even human.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 51 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,108
If white people aren’t smarter, explain how my head is so big it doesn’t even fit in the frame. I must be a superior being. See this is the problem with niggers who can’t read dictionary definitions. If you were smart like an aryan instead of being an inferior Üntermensch monkey, you would know that the brain is defined as the thinking organ. Look how big my thinking organ isAnonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 7 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,134
@1,440,098 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> I talked to a pedophile before, I will say, as evil as they were, they were less broken than you are. You’re not even human.
lol
> I talked to a pedophile before, I will say, as evil as they were, they were less broken than you are. You’re not even human.
lol
Anonymous H double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,147
Addendum, P.S., w/e
Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
Someone that thinks disagreement means they are being attacked is just saying "I'm offended" in a different phrasing.
If that same person accuses others of "being offended" when those people have never claimed they felt attacked/offended then that person is practicing projection.
Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
Someone that thinks disagreement means they are being attacked is just saying "I'm offended" in a different phrasing.
If that same person accuses others of "being offended" when those people have never claimed they felt attacked/offended then that person is practicing projection.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 33 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,150
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,152
@1,440,147 (H)
> Addendum, P.S., w/e
>
> Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
>
> Someone that thinks disagreement means they are being attacked is just saying "I'm offended" in a different phrasing.
>
> If that same person accuses others of "being offended" when those people have never claimed they felt attacked/offended then that person is practicing projection.
By the way, what you wrote contradicts itself. If you claim that the other side of offending is attacking and you’re claiming that I’m offended by you, then maybe that means it’s justified because you’re a socially retarded narcissist who argues about the most asinine low IQ bullshit endlessly.
> Addendum, P.S., w/e
>
> Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
>
> Someone that thinks disagreement means they are being attacked is just saying "I'm offended" in a different phrasing.
>
> If that same person accuses others of "being offended" when those people have never claimed they felt attacked/offended then that person is practicing projection.
By the way, what you wrote contradicts itself. If you claim that the other side of offending is attacking and you’re claiming that I’m offended by you, then maybe that means it’s justified because you’re a socially retarded narcissist who argues about the most asinine low IQ bullshit endlessly.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 1 month ago, 9 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,153
You literally spent this entire thread acting like you’re superior to me when you’re financially illiterate and don’t know what the fuck you’re even talking about in the first place. I don’t think you even know what borrowing against debt means because I kept saying it over and over again and you kept responding like you didn’t know wtf it was but we’re confident it meant they had to pay it back in their lifetime, and when I said they have to pay it back when they die, you kept arguing with me even thought that’s what triggered you to argue with me in the first place. You are so fucking dumb that it’s violent. I find everything about your existence offensive. You refuse to ever criticize yourself or admit you’re wrong and you wonder why I act the same when I’m talking to you. You’re a bad person and I don’t like you. I’m always going to do the exact opposite of what you want me to do, because I just don’t like you. I’m never going to agree with you on anything. You always whine that I call you stupid but you call me racial slurs, never apologize for it. I think I have the right to be honest. I never lie to you about how I feel about you, but you’re so narcissistic you can’t get it through your thick skull and into your tiny peanut brain. I don’t even know what the point of giving you a brain was, if you were on life support brain dead in a hospital I’d have less of an issue with you, but you practically have negative intelligence. That’s why you literally defend incest. You’re a disgusting person and I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re a rapist or a child molester given your attitude.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,154
And that’s the other thing about you, you support and defend incest. Chimpanzees avoid incest. Racists like you have the audacity to compare black people to chimpanzees, yet you’re literally more disgusting than a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees avoid mating with their own family members. You keep arguing that DNA doesn’t matter because you’re a fucking retard. But humans and chimpanzees split 5 to 7 million years ago. How are you such a social retard that you’re not willing to break a taboo that’s backed by millions of years of evolution? Do you have a brain tumor or something? The only thing that could make me rationalize how fucked up of a person you are is if you’re like Phineas Gage and your personality changed after you survived a tamping iron being blaster through your skull with dynamite.Mr. Bloody Lemonade quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,155
And it’s not just that you have one or two stupid opinions I disagree with, it’s that on every subject you ever bring up you have the most retarded opinion possible. You literally spent this whole thread arguing that billionaires don’t avoid taxes. Hello? Have you been asleep since the Industrial Revolution?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,157
It also just amazes me how much self awareness you lack that you have the audacity to be a racist and try to claim blacks are inferior when you’re a perfect stereotype yourself. For crying out loud, you’re a white man who actually openly tries to defend incest. You’re such a fucking stereotype, I could easily call you a redneck, but I just call you stupid instead because I don’t have to go down to your level of depravity.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade septuple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,159
And, I know the Catholic Church has been responsible for some bad things historically. The explicit reason why you don’t like Catholicism is because you don’t like that the Catholic Church is against incest. I can’t think of a worse reason to not like the Catholic Church. I don’t have a problem with atheists or people from different religions, but if you’re going to dislike Catholicism, the fact that Catholicism says having sex with your family is bad… that’s the worst reason I’ve never heard.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade octuple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,160
I wonder if the reason why you called your mom delusional is because you’re such a narcissistic weirdo you asked… "asked" your mom to have sex with you and she said no and now you go around hating women. How can I know that’s not the reason when you go around defending incest? It’s disgusting!
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 1 year after the original post[^] [v] #1,440,191
@1,440,152 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
> By the way, what you wrote contradicts itself. If you claim that the other side of offending is attacking
Once again you show that you have no reading comprehension. Here's what I wrote:
> Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
I said the other side of offending is taking offense, not attacking. I said attacking is another word for offending.
> By the way, what you wrote contradicts itself. If you claim that the other side of offending is attacking
Once again you show that you have no reading comprehension. Here's what I wrote:
> Taking offense is the other side of "offending". Offending is just another word for "attacking.
I said the other side of offending is taking offense, not attacking. I said attacking is another word for offending.