Brooklyn666
-
Posts
365 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Brooklyn666
-
-
I don't care for incest, I would much rather put mah dick in my doggo. lol
You should move to Texas. Their legislature voted to decriminalize bestiality while at the very same time voting to make same-sex marriage MORE illegal. Clearly this means Republicans like having sex with animals and want to encourage others to do so.
-
I get no mention
You'll get nothing and like it!
-
How does Rose get 16 pages but SK only gets 3
-
They still have Valyria, unless I missed something (which is entirely possible)
Yea we still have Valyria. They're going to be our only treaty for the foreseeable future.
-
-
"big league", which is at least a phrase. I would have had to drink like 1/2 a bottle if he had said "bigly" again.
Is it confirmed that's what he said? Honest to god I listened 12 times and couldn't tell. And the sad part is I'm not sure which one is worse.
-
Taking bets on how long anyone is going to care about this once food production goes back to normal. I'll be generous and give it a full week.
-
I just don't understand how the league plans to operate in any sort of secrecy. You'll have to perform several spy ops on any target just to get rid of their spies, and then however many ops for each nuke you want to get rid of. The odds are almost certain that you'll be identified during one of those ops. The target would then reasonably assume the ops were sanctioned by the league, and retaliate against the aa of the league member.
-
2
-
-
Every single TLF response in this thread is just
-
See, now you're moving the goal posts.
I find it problematic that you rely on pointing out cognitive fallacies as a subtle appeal to authority (another cognitive fallacy) and then commit cognitive fallacies in the same post.
Get better at recognising cognitive fallacies, so you don't look like a hypocritical jackass when you fail to realize you're arguments are just as logically unsound. That's literally my constructive critism (as could've easily been inferred by my previous post).
I'm not sure why you're being so hostile, especially when I'm really only responding to Partisan and he doesn't seem to have the same issues you do. Regardless, I'm not going to keep running in circles with you because neither of us are going to get anywhere. If it's important to you to feel like you won this, then call it a win for you I guess. I'm out.
Hey, if it's worth anything to you: I feel like we're actually making progress. Sometimes you got to fling some shit at one another before you can move on
.Anyways. I do agree that it's entirely possible that it has not been intentional on your part. In practice, it may still have ended up !@#$ us in a way, but naivity does not equate to duplicity and that would be a redeeming factor. If anything, i'm glad you are at leas acknowledging our grievance and trying to establish the dialogue.
Part of the frustration is that it's hard to get a read on where naivity ends and intention starts, if that makes sense.
I certainly agree on all 3 points, and I also agree that it doesn't make much sense if you explain it that way. Should definitely note that people do not always act rationally. We've seen this in this game over an over
.If we deduct that way:
- Maybe you thought that with SK moving, you could tip the scales and as such the move seemed beneficial enough (given the reward of being heralded as a savior of sorts within paracov, and the foundation for a or even the lead role in a now winning sphere)
- I can reasonably assume that you (read: SK as a whoe) approached others within our sphere to join you in moving away from tS as well (correct me if i'm wrong?). Maybe this is a worst case scenario.
- Maybe you started out wanting a third sphere, realized it wasn't viable and then decided you had no option but to come at us.
- Maybe you somehow felt slighted over something (anything) that occurred between tS-SK and that we are unaware of, and maybe that has driven you to move.
- Or maybe it was indeed all a plot.
Point being... there can be many rational, semi-rational and irrational motivations that influenced your decisions. There is a case to be made for every scenario, and every scenario can be refuted in a different way as well.
Your line of reasoning does make sense on its own. There have been conflicting messages going out from SK though. A point of contention I want to bring up is that I recall a prominent SK figure stating that in order for your plans to succeed, tS had to be defeated, or something along those lines. If you wish I can dig for the quote. It's on the OWF here somewhere.
That quote on its own would invalidate the entire proposition brought forth in this particular discussion. Could you elaborate on how we need to interpret that?
EDIT: got it! (It was Mikey)
If your third sphere's viability is considered mutually exclusive with peaceful relations with tS, I can understand that... but that kind of invalidates any claims of your involvement in this war being no more than the direct result of Rose aggression.
I understand people don't act rationally, but you know us. You've known us for a long time. Does that kind of 180 seem like something we would do? Sure, we can go over every single possible line of decision making, have me refute it, and you question my refutation, but I don't have the stamina for this that you do
I understand your suspicion, but I think you have to apply your knowledge and interactions with us to inform you of our intentions.I personally, and SK gov in total, doesn't think that peaceful coexistence with tS and a 3rd sphere are mutually exclusive.
As to Mikey's comment, He partially answered it and I'll let him clarify if needed, but I interpreted it as a combination of bluster, him not being in gov, and the factual basis that this war happened sooner than we planned and had to scramble to get it together. I think you and I are having a pretty civil conversation right now while at the same time non-gov members on both sides are getting hostile and saying all kinds of stuff. I'm not mad at anyone, just saying that to my knowledge, that's all Mikey was doing.
And this is for everyone else: I had several long talks with Vanek, Partisan, Manthrax, and Roquentin about what were gonna do with Gandalf after the leak. I laid out our reasons for keeping him with suspension, and they understood even if they didn't agree. I'm not invalidating your feelings. You have a right to be angry, but don't base your anger off faulty assumptions.
-
For somehow who tries to build the foundation of his arguments on cognitive fallacies, you sure do set up a lot of false dichotomies.
Well why don't you point out what you find problematic and I'll address it. It's not really helpful or informative for you to point the finger at me for doing what literally everyone else in every one of these threads does all the time unless you're gonna provide some constructive criticism. Otherwise it's just a double standard.
-
Yea, I understand why you might interpret things that way, but can you also understand that there might be some confirmation bias in play on your part? It's pretty much impossible to prove a negative in this instance, so there's no way for me to absolutely prove to you that I'm telling the truth, but let's look at this way If we can agree on the following:
1. That tS and SK were extremely close allies for a long time and we worked together to smash paracov together many times
2. That we have witnessed firsthand your side's war capabilities by being on your side and winning with you all the time
3. That we know the less than stellar fighting capabilities of our current allies by having fought against them many times
If we can agree that the above things are true, then why on earth would we plan for months to deliberately turn on you for absolutely no reason just to run to paracov where'd we be certain to get our asses kicked by you?
One of two things are true. Either we deliberately planned and schemed for months to drop you and then roll you in a war that we had also been planning the whole time (if you look at the buildup prior to the war, you'll see in the beginning we were a day or two behind everyone else, so we clearly that far in still hadn't planned on attacking), or, we tried to do something different but it just didn't work and we ended up back in the same pattern but on the other side because of our treaty changes. Can you honestly say that the former seems like the more likely scenario?
-
So when did you actually start planning to attack us?
Like 3 or 4 days before the war started. Once Rose told us their plans, we knew you would preempt us anyway so there was no reason for us to hold back.
What orders did you specifically get from Jessica? We did have her send orders re: actual coalition)-approved targeting. NAC was never discussed for SK as our strategy revolved around dodging all UPN chains (meaning: ve and NAC)
This is mostly true. The Jessica thing and the NAC thing are separate. Jessica sent out targets to our members without going through our gov but that was unrelated to NAC.
-
Re-read the relevant paragraphs and it is fairly clear what I'm referring to. I'll lay it out.
Partisan claims you said something in an irc chat which counters a major part of your narrative that he had responded to.
You seemingly acknowledge you said those things (unless you now want to accuse partisan of lying), but say what does it matter since Partisan claimed you are a liar, so he couldn't care if you said that.
So, either one, you admit you were lying (either in that chat or in this thread), or two, you weren't and were telling the truth, but since it counters your prior point in this thread, it clearly shows cognitive dissonance, which you accused Partisan of yourself.
Partisan and I chatted, yes, and no, he's not lying. I'm assuming you're talking about this: "We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part".
Narrative implies I'm telling a story, which ok, I get why you might think that, but I have no reason to. I told Partisan and Manthrax the same thing and I have receipts. I told them both we weren't dropping tS with the intention of hitting you, but that it was possible it could end up happening due to the circumstances and treaty web, and the fact that you guys fight rose a lot and with us allied to them, it was a distinct possibility.
Partisan is saying (I think) that the fact that we were planning to roll in on you with rose is incontrovertible proof that we in fact dropped you with the specific intention of hitting you, contradicting what I said in private. Now that depends on whether you believe Partisan or not. I can't prove a negative, other than to say that we've all consistently said here that we had no plans to roll tS until a few days before war kicked of when Rose told us their plans. You can be mad that we hit *you*, but you can't be mad that we backed up our allies the same way literally everyone else does and is standard op in this game.
Here's what I meant by the cognitive dissonance: Partisan says he has believed/known for months that SK was plotting against tS, yet he seemed to acknowledge that at least at the time, he believed what I had said in pm, although it's possible I misread that. Both those things can't be true. Either he believed at the time of our pm that I was lying about everything, or he believed I was being sincere. If he thought I was plotting at the time, why would he have believed me? We talked about a lot of stuff and it makes no sense that he would selectively believe certain things and not others if he thought there was a plot already in motion.
-
10/10 for laughs, 1/10 for execution
-
No its just you guys doing that
It's gettin' meta up in here!
Lets see what happens when I do a little something: "No its just you guys doing that", without extraneous words, becomes "No
its justyouguys doing that"
-
2
-
-
Nah bruh. That was SK who !@#$ed up.
tl;dr of this entire thread: "no u" ad nasueum
-
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, in the above you are essentially acknowledging that either you yourself also have cognitive dissonance, or that you are lying.
Unless that is of course your are accusing Partisan of lying on this part, which you didn't do in the prior response so I am assuming that is not the case, correct me if I'm wrong.What? I literally have no idea what you're talking about. This doesn't make any sense.
-
yay I baited someone into world walls!
BREAKDOWN
No seat needed. I'm a snake.
There has been no point where I said anything about you needing to 'bow your head' or 'say nice things'. Neither did we ever 'disown you' or treat you as your 'overlord'. The notion is laughable and idiotic. Quit the charade. We both know that you do not even support that notion yourself- you expressed as much in query, weeks ago.
When you !@#$ed up and pissed us off, we talked it out and moved on. You then cancelled on us and plotted (and executed) a coalition war against us. Now you claim that we disowned you? Bullshit, Brooklyn. Don't even try to play this whole 'booh evil overlord' rhetoric with me. It's silly.
1. It matters exactly because of your post just now. Some of you have driven the narrative (in private and/or public) that tS has somehow wronged you. I see the history of SK !@#$ ups and us working it out as direct evidence to the contrary and will therefore consistently present it when any within SK bemoan the position they currently find themselves in.
2. We won despite you, not because of you. I do not see how us winning in any way negates the breach of trust. We were angry about it. We didn't drop you nor roll you, because we did not want to dictate your internals to you and because you were our ally- shit happens. You try to work it out. Thing is, as allies we interpreted it as mishaps- inexperience perhaps. In light of your recent actions, it looks a bit more coordinated and deliberate. Or do you disagree that it seems suspicious?
3. Word. At least we agree on something.
4. What delusions have we had with regards to SK? We did all we could to part without bullshit. Your own high govt member went around bullshitting us throughout his tenure. First thing coming from Gandalf's mouth when you cancelled on us was a bunch of 'OMG hegemoney LELELEL' stuff. How exactly do you expect us to interpret that, along with other hostility? Let's stick to the SK-tS relationship here. I'll be interested in hearing your answer.
5. You personally put in effort for certain. But lets face it brooklyn: We're at war and this one was *not* initiated by tS. It was planned an coordinated by SK alongside a coalition of paracov. That in itself *directly* contradicts all the claims yo made to us in query when you tried to amiably part. On the latter part of your point: I have not stated any judgement on your capacity to win a war, nor on your manipulative abilities. That one's entirely irrelevant and you should probably drop it because it does not add any value to the discussion at hand.
6. Everyone plays the game in a different way. Who are you to make me change the way I play it?
. If you're going to put out a PR narrative (lol tS pre-empted us), it's silly to call out the response because 'lel its just a game'. We all know it is. We also all know that that's irrelevant. This type of callout is usually not much more than a hollow 'no u'.7. Hey look, agreement!
8. You personally? Agreed. Others in SK? Disagreed.
9. And again: my opinion =/= tS policy. With that said: I've always looked at the bigger picture/surrounding circumstances when assessing a situation. In this case? I view you as a defacto aggressor by virtue of your political manouvers and military intentions coupled with already conducted military strikes by clear coalition partners.
Simply put: If you have two forces with each 3 regiments (e.g. blue and red): Regiment R1 and R2 hit regiment B1 and B2. Regiment B3 sees what's happening and sees regiment R3 taking aim. Regiment B3 pre-empts R3. Who is the aggressor? To me? The broader coalition of R.
10.This is yet another idiotic brainfart stemming from the irrational delusion that you are somehow 'breaking the mold' or 'doing something different'. You switched sides. That's all. We do no care about you 'doing something different', or even 'cancelling on us'. What we do care about is you literally planning and executing a war against us and our allies on a coalition-wide scale. Are you really going to shift the cause for our grievance from 'you literally went to war against us and our allies' to 'ITS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO SOMEHING DIFFERENT'? Bullshit spin.
Whether you succeed or fail is entirely irrelevant to how we should treat you. You sacked up and came at us. Now we're simply doing our thing. You're right: You're not an existential threat. You are however an adversary. Simple and clear. Your member count is equally irrelevant.
Subtext, man. No, you didn't "literally" say that, and you didn't "literally" 'disown us', but I'm not Amelia Bedelia so I'm capable of deriving non-literal meaning from words and broader discussions. And whatever I said in query, you've already accused me of lying about everything else, so I'm not sure why you think *that* part would be the one thing that was true. Sounds like there's some cognitive dissonance going on.
1. No one is bemoaning anything. We own our mistakes. I told Manthrax several weeks ago we were prepared for the large chance that this would happen to us. As for driving narratives, this may surprise you, but not everyone in SK thinks or feels the same way about things, and people are free to talk about what they want. That doesn't make it our policy. All this "direct evidence to the contrary" e-lawyering is beneath you.
2. You're clearly still angry about it. And no I don't agree. Every time I talk to you you push back the date that we allegedly started plotting against you even further, so it makes for a good story for you, but it doesn't even hold its own internal logic. At some point we'll have created SK just to take down a tS that didn't even exist yet.
3. Yep.
4. See #2
5. It was planned and initiated by Rose and we rolled in because 1. they're our allies and 2. we knew you would pre-empt us anyway because we are Rose allies even if we didn't plan on it. I'm not upset about because that's how the game works and you shouldn't be either.
6. It was an invitation that you're free to decline, although I think it makes all of this a lot more unpleasant for everyone. Nothing more.
7. Great.
8. See #1
9. For us it's individuals expressing their opinions, for you it seems to be your MO. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure seems like it, and I guess you're free to interpret the same for us, although I think an objective observer would see a pretty stark contrast.
10. You already responding to this in your follow up, but again, even if all we did was switch sides, (which wasn't our intention but turned out to be the de facto result), that's still us in a different position than before. And as predicted, your denial just makes me believe it even more.
- And yea, sure. I don't disagree nor did I say anything to the contrary. You're just responding to things you wish I'd said and not things I actually said.
I don't know about living, you certainly are dying though.
What is dead may never die!
-
I'm going to ignore the rest, because I'm neither qualified nor caring enough to go into it. But this bit made me chuckle. In what way are you doing anything different? Your "third sphere" is coordinating with the sphere you "broke away from" in an attempt to take down Syndisphere/OO. Seems to me like you are doing the exact same thing that has been done for many turns of the wheel.
It's not a coded message. It means exactly what it means, which is "not being your allies anymore". I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of different, regardless of what you think our sphere is. I'm not sure why you thought picking apart this one very clear point was worth anything.
In case anyone else is confused and needs help understanding my big words, "different" means "not doing the same thing we were doing before" ; as in not being allies to tS anymore. I can make some visual aids if this still isn't clear.
-
1
-
-
When we spoke, I told you that you were lucky that you had Manthrax dealing with you and I told you to be careful not to shit on that.
You did anyways.
Let's look at our recent history this way:
- In Valdoroth's first war (168), you took early peace after randomly hitting NAC and prompting UPN to come in.
- The very next war kicked off prematurely because your head of FA leaked confidential information to what was at the tim the biggest rival/enemy/threat to tS. Technically speaking? This was a direct breach of trust.
- You sat out the following war, though I can understand that one.
- You did not take care of the leaking govt member and instead reinstalled him as head of FA with the objective to push away from us and take us down. In you (as in, SK's) on words: 'for our third sphere to be viable, we need to take you out'.
- You transparently feigned a desire for cordiality in order to placate us out of fear for pre-emptive measures.
- Simultaneously, you coordinated with our historical rivals to mount a coalitionwide strike on us.
- By your own admission, you were set to go in on the same night we pre-empted us. You were going to hit tS. Your allies had already hit tS allies.
- We nipped that in the bud because frankly, you lost your moral high ground a long time ago, and we had no intent to give you any military advantage whatsoever.
Personally? I still view this war as aggressive of your part. It was prepared and planned by you. Initiated by you. Intended and desired by you.
I no longer make our decisions. But shit, I would certainly support any and all punitive measures. Because why not at this point?
Why don't you go ahead and take several seats. First of all, I want to dismiss out of hand the laughable notion that we should be genuflecting to you or that you we live and die by your generosity and magnanimity, although it does speak a lot to how you view your position in the game. "If only we had bowed our heads lower and said more nice things about our overlords, maybe they wouldn't have disowned us." Go ahead and save this garbage for someone who cares.
As for the rest, here we go:
1. True, but couldn't be less relevant to anything happening now, so I really have no idea why you're bringing it up other than to throw out one more minor blemish on our record that everyone already knows about.
2. True, but you guys won by a landslide anyway. If you were angry enough about it then to drop us and/or roll us then or even months after, you had every opportunity to do so, but you didn't. You accepted our decision then so you forfeited the right to bring it up every time you want to blame us for some unrelated shit way later as if it was some sort of fresh wound.
3. Nothing to disagree on here.
4. See number 2 but also with the additional note that we're not responsible for trying to refute your paranoid delusions. I also don't know who those quotes are from but they're not from me. I don't deny it's possible someone else in sk said that, but if you're gonna put words in our mouths, you better have receipts.
5. See my preamble and the above vis a vis paranoid delusions. I personally went way above and beyond to try to keep things cool between us after the split, and I steered SK in that direction even when others didn't want to. If you want to believe it was all a lie and some elaborate conspiracy (although to what end I can't possibly imagine), that's on you. One of two things is true though: either we are master manipulators who plot and scheme the likes of which would make Cersei Lannister proud, or we are incompetent and can't even win a war. You can't have it both ways.
6. Sorta true, but let's have a little context here. This is a browser based game, not the Hundred Years War, so feel free to tone down the melodrama and histrionics, although I know you won't.
7. True, I don't disagree.
8. We've never ever mentioned or pretended to have a moral high ground because we don't care. That's your game.See the above.
9. I don't give a sack of rotten bear turds what you personally think. There's zero precedent for this (because it's an absolutely ridiculous notion). "We attacked you but you are the attackers because we said so!!" Good luck in all of our future wars where you are the aggressive party because the other person said so.
10. See the above. At this point this has become a pretty transparently personal grudge because we had the gall to do something different, and the more you protest the more obvious it becomes. But it's ok, I fully expect you to do so anyway. Gotta demonize big bad SK who has half the members you do and is losing a war to you but is still somehow an existential threat.
And now I'm quite finished.
-
Time to extract very very punitive reps from these guys. 1 billion cash and 100k of each resource from each of the initial alliances that attacked. Then, all the treasures that the other side gets is given up to an alliance of our side's choosing for an entire year. That should be very very good incentive to git gud.
But tS preempted us
-
Dear SK: when you cancelled on us... I had hoped that it would at least put an end to the miscommunications which seemed to envelop our relations in recent history. You know what I am talking about. From my vantage point, its amusing to see that even now you manage to confuse yourself to the point where your government is no longer certain what your plan was.
What truly strikes me as hilarious though, are your posts in this thread. Pointing out your contradictions does not equate to salt. You wanted to part amiably, so we did. You then sought to attack us- both in coalition warfare and directly. So we pre-empted you. You know how we operate. You should have come to expect this.
I recall a conversation between myself and brooklyn following your cancellation. It's disappointing to see that his explained intentions were either a minority opinion, or a lie meant to placate us (as similar sentiments were given to our government).
Continue please
Come on bby you know you love the soothing sound of my voice
-
I'll say this for Rose, they're consistent. From way back when we were allies long ago, to the stretch of time when we were enemies, and all the way to the present, their blitzes have always been terrible. Never change guys. But really please do because this is getting embarrassing at this point.
Incest Debate And Liberal Double Standards
in General Debate
Posted
And now for a list of other states where bestiality is legal but same-sex marriage (prior to United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) was illegal:
Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
And just for a little comparison, here's the list of states where bestiality is illegal and same-sex marriage was legal before United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges:
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
Anyone notice a pattern?