yetineti

@Yimpa @Natasha Tori Maru Thank you, ladies.

@LordFall That is why you rage quit? I was just about to tell you what it is about me that makes me valuable! But I don’t owe you any qualifications and I apologize for my lack of clarity and your misunderstanding of the topic. I tried to clarify your and my own thesis before hand and make this a proper debate. I offered to tell you about myself. I just wanted to make sure, if I didn’t tell you, you wouldn’t make any assumptions. More than fair for me to ensure good faith. But it is public for everyone to see now. Don’t even try to delete it! I have my own copy.

What’d I do @LordFall? We were having a good conversation and you left!

I am actually the one who decides that independently FYI. You are about to determine if you are worth my time. Not because I wanted this, because by my standards, you’ve made it necessary. State your thesis to the topic Sunday. No more. No less.

You’re right about not engaging with low quality males, though. If you will not reconcile this once and for all, I do not see a reason to continue communication. There will be no debate or future forum responses. You will become an ignored user. This is a community for discussion, not debate in a competitive manner. I will no longer be guilty of that and if you are serious about any of this, and genuinely think you could be productive in a discussion Sunday, I think you will take what I’m saying seriously.

The funniest part about this is my life being private and yours being public. You’ve been arguing blind. — The point was never to debate. The point was to give you an opportunity for a real discussion with someone or a healthy debate. You have not explained your thesis on the topic or how it will be respectable enough for discussion. If I were to cancel Sunday, that’d be the reason: your avoidance, not mine. The topic I picked is actually remarkably easy to spin positively. Your inability to see it that way and hesitancy to frame in that way in the title and via your explanation is not my fault. Also, I’ve avoided you less than anybody on this forum. You’ve actively avoided me and suggested others do so, as well.

Totally spazzed out and deleted that all, oops. Yeah, I’m not rewriting all of that.

You keep replacing the actual sequence with a more flattering story about your intentions. You suggested the debate and explicitly let me choose the topic. I chose whether I possess meaningful worth as a man. You broadened that into a generic discussion of male value. I corrected you, and you answered, “Even better.” Once I pointed out what that proposition requires you to defend, you redefined your claim from offering no value, to being “low value,” to failing your baseline for a “high-impact man,” to possibly being a “net drain.” Now you’re pretending that I demanded a public audit of myself when I merely held you to the topic you accepted. I’m not asking to prove my worth to you. You repeatedly judged my value, competence, relationships, psychology, finances, and contribution while knowing almost nothing about my life. Therefore, you carry the burden of stating exactly what you claim and what evidence supports it. Asking you to articulate your claim before I agree to a livestream is not “backtracking into forum essays.” It is determining whether there is even a coherent proposition to debate. So far, every time your position becomes defensible, its meaning changes. Either state precisely what you claim about me and present the evidence that led you there, or acknowledge that your earlier judgments were unsupported provocations. I’m not appearing on your channel simply to audition for human worth under standards you invent as we go. This is your last chance to prove this is worth my time.

@Joshe Exactly lmao. He trapped himself. He can spin it however he wants now.

Nobody claimed that lacking value means ceasing to exist physically. That is a straw man. Your product analogy also makes value relational: a product can provide no benefit to one consumer while being extremely useful to another. So who is the “consumer” in your assessment of me, what costs and benefits are being measured, and what evidence did you use to calculate that I am a net drain? You know almost nothing about my work, relationships, responsibilities, finances, or the people who depend on me. You repeatedly made personal judgments about my competence, relationships, psychology, social ability, finances, and value as a man. Calling my response “taking it personally” does not make those judgments impersonal or mean that I am taking them personally. If anything, your repeated inability to express points without making assumptions and attacking people is more evident that something is bothering you, not me. Then you have admitted these were not evidence-based assessments. They were provocations intended to make me defend myself and perform competence for you. Whether your tactic successfully provoked me says nothing about whether your original judgment was true. You appointed yourself someone else’s motivational coach without knowing what they have already built, then treated resistance to your unsupported judgment as proof that your intervention was necessary. That is self-sealing. If someone accepts your judgment, you “motivated” them. If they reject it, they are “collapsing into victimhood.” Either reaction allows you to preserve the assumption that you were qualified to judge them in the first place. Also—I challenged you. You accepted and offered the livestream. You have not really challenged me. Nobody asked you to be. The alternatives are not mothering someone or degrading them into self-improvement. You could simply support your claims with evidence and acknowledge what you do not know. That is a false dichotomy. “Breaking even” is not the same as being a net drain, and creating scalable abundance is not the only form of functional benefit. More importantly, you asserted that I am low-value before knowing what I produce or which problems I solve. You are now asking me to supply the evidence you should have possessed before reaching your conclusion. You made the judgment. You bring the case. Frankly, you should be able to articulate a coherent claim and provide the evidence for it before I decide whether this conversation deserves any more of my time.

Fair distinction: “low value” does not necessarily mean mathematical zero, and my explanation made that more absolute than I intended. But I didn’t invent this premise. You previously defined low-value men as people who “literally don’t offer value to your life” and instead leech it. You told me I might offer no value to the world, attributed my disagreement to marketplace invalidation, told me to drop my ego and become skilled in something people value, and most recently said I bring little value to conversation. My original message was responding to that entire pattern. When I clarified that I meant whether I possess meaningful worth as a man—not a generic discussion about male value—you answered, “Even better.” Now you say I possess value but fall below your baseline for a “high-impact man.” Fine. Then you’ve conceded the premise I meant to challenge and replaced it with a narrower one. So were those earlier judgments never actually your position, or are you revising your position now that you have to defend it directly?

@Olaf Do you have to play ‘nice guy’ to have male friends? No. I don’t play nice guy to hang out with women.

@LordFall I never mentioned a Messiah complex, you did. My point is: you were once again putting others down to make your own points. Which you just had to do again by starting your message with the assumption I am being dishonest and conflating that with baiting, while accusing me of that as well. Try making points that are standalone, instead of depending on others not to fight back.

@Olaf They have to at least think you’re friends for the night haha.

You owe the world 10x value for the next year for wasting all of our time.

You trapped yourself.

@LordFall Then let’s be absolutely clear about what you just agreed to. I said nobody would talk to me like this in person, so you challenged me and let me choose the topic. I chose whether I have any worth as a man. You then broadened it into “what makes a man valuable.” I corrected the topic, and you responded, “Even better.” I don’t have to challenge your definition of value or argue that mine is better. I only have to demonstrate one form of value that you already recognize, using your own standards. You now have to prove that my life, relationships, actions, abilities, and potential contribute absolutely nothing of value. That’s the almost impossible, and a genuinely dehumanizing, position you just enthusiastically volunteered to defend. This is gold.

Do you have any female friends you just hang out with?

The point was: if you were going to do the same things regardless, the framing of ‘saving the world’ just seems like you’re trying to play power games or imply low value in others. When in reality, you’ve just admitted it wouldn’t matter. Yet you imply to others that this is a duty and a requirement not to be ‘low-value.’ Which can make it seem like you’re trying to make what you do sound more important than it is. Don’t get me wrong. It is important.

Let’s be clear on the topic at hand. The debate is not generically on what makes a man valuable. You gave me the option to pick the topic. We will be debating whether or not I have any worth as a man. Let’s not shy away before it’s already happened.

@LordFall You will continuing calling me delusional and saying that I haven’t made any good points. It is the most simplistic cop out haha. Pathetic I expected more from you. Are we still having that livestream debate? You should make a forum thread explaining the topic so people can prepare to view it. It will be on your channel.

@LordFall I had my AI summarize it for you. You still haven’t addressed: Why power necessarily means control or deliberate selection. Why God must operate through human motives like enjoyment or boredom. Why the only possibilities are “God couldn’t avoid suffering” or “God enjoys it.” Whether pain could be a consequence of something greater rather than the purpose itself. My point that if every possible experience can occur, comparison and labels like sadistic or masochistic eventually collapse. The distinction between suffering not fundamentally existing and reality not existing—which you completely misrepresented. Why rejecting everyone else’s explanations somehow validates your own. How this qualifies as an inquiry when you haven’t genuinely entertained alternatives to your conclusion. Calling my argument “subjectivity” doesn’t answer it. You acknowledged that it holds from the universal perspective, then immediately switched back to the human perspective—even though your claim is specifically about God’s perspective and values. If God is every being, you haven’t explained why an individual’s actions should be attributed to a separate ruler called God rather than to that individual. You haven’t addressed the difference between the structure of God and the subjective experiences occurring within it. Someone’s inability or unwillingness to explain something to your satisfaction does not prove them wrong or make your conclusion correct. You admit you don’t know the answer, yet repeatedly speak as though sadism has been logically established. Calling alternatives “foolish,” “delusional,” or “bad faith” is not a rebuttal to them. Not understanding a point is not the same thing as having disproved it. Your argument remains self-sealing: every answer you reject becomes further “evidence” that your original conclusion must be right. You’ve reacted to these points and shared how you feel, but you haven’t actually acknowledged or answered them. And now you have over a dozen points you have claimed you already solved but they stand all at once, reminding you, you haven’t. If you have, it should be easy to correct the record.

That’s all you can imagine? Those are the only possibilities? Yikes! You’re in for a rude awakening, if any at all, frankly. Going to have to be much more creative to understand God. PS: ask your Gemini all the points I made that you haven’t acknowledged yet

We have numerous times, you just keep insulting us and claiming we’re wrong without knowing the answer yourself. Rude and immature. Circular and ignorant. Of course it seems foolish. I can admit that and I appreciate the question. Unfortunately your feelings on it don’t change anything. That only person that is lost is you. You have displayed numerous limited beliefs in this and don’t seem to be able to make any actual points other than insult people still. It can’t even pass for intellectual anymore. It’s passing for a guy that puts his responses into Gemini. You haven’t thought anybody has made sense, except you, extremely arrogantly. Want whatever you want. Doesn’t make it possible. There has not actually been an inquiry. You have not entertained more than one idea.

There are no mechanics to suffering, that’s been the whole point that you’ve missed. You’re not going to figure out the mechanics to something that fundamentally does not exist, whether you experience it subjectively or not.