LordFall

@yetineti It started when I told another user to ignore you because you argued in bad faith and didn't seem serious. You took offense, demanded my attention, and pushed for this debate. I gave you the chance—you picked the topic of your own personal worth, celebrated that you "trapped" me, and now you're building exit ramps before Sunday even arrives. If you withdraw after asking for the mic, that’s your right, but backing out now just confirms everything I said about your avoidance patterns. The stream goes live Sunday at 8 PM EST. Show up and stand on your words, or don't. @Valach Testing ideas through genuine, open debate is one of the highest pursuits we have—it only becomes an ego trap when anonymous posters hide behind text screens to posture rather than standing on their convictions in real life.

@Breakingthewall That mutual dependence is real, but history shows economic entanglement doesn't make major conflict impossible, it just raises the stakes. Europe in 1914 was more financially integrated than ever before, and everyone thought the cost was too high right up until the spark caught. Globalized supply chains create fragility just as easily as they create deterrence. When domestic pressure, demographic decline, or resource bottlenecks squeeze powers too hard, rational cost-benefit calculations tend to break down fast. Let's hope the system holds, but betting everything on perpetual rational stability has historically been a risky gamble.

@Joshe I honestly thought it would've been rude to make the entire thread an audit of his personal worth, but he explicitly insisted on it. What can I say? The customer is always right 😂

@yetineti I framed the title as an inquiry into male value in good faith, specifically to avoid putting you through a personal cross-examination on a public broadcast. Since you explicitly insist on making the topic about your personal worth and what you contribute to the world, I'm happy to honor your terms. We will examine the exact mechanics, standards, and real-world evidence of that value. That conversation happens on the stream, not through a written pre-debate on a message board. You asked for the mic, don’t backtrack into forum essays.

There is no revision. When a product offers no value to a consumer, nobody is claiming the object ceases to exist at an atomic level—it means it fails to produce a functional benefit, and maintaining it costs more than it delivers. That is what a net drain is. You’re taking this far more personally than it was ever meant, but it worked as intended: you are supposed to want to produce value, and you are supposed to fiercely defend your ability to do so. When I challenge people like this, I don’t want them to collapse into victimhood—I want them to push back, build competence, and fight. I’m not here to be your caring mother. I’m here to share what I’ve learned about how the world actually operates and challenge men to step up in ways that genuinely matter to society. I think it's good for them, good for the women in their lives and good for our species as a whole. You conceded that "low value" isn't a mathematical zero. Good. That leaves only the real question: does what you produce actually create abundance and solve problems for anyone, or does your existence simply consume bandwidth while breaking even? Bring your case to the stream on Sunday at 8 PM EST. Let’s see what that value looks like off the forum.

There is something terribly pathological about Reddit mods. It's like its the only power in life they've had and they love to ban people for any slight deviance from the subreddit hive mind. It used to be better years ago but as I think these people have grown into their position the standards for conversations have dropped more and more. I can't think of a worse place on the Internet to have a serious conversation. When people complain about AI slop it's one of the examples that comes to my mind in terms of much more useless human slop.

I don't think you understand how arguments work so I'll give you a hint. Low value does not mean absolute zero; it means failing to meet the baseline standards of competence, agency, and leadership that define a high-impact man. A penny has value, but you can't buy dinner with it. If your strategy is gonna be to prove to us that you're worth at least a penny then I think indeed you will manage to do that. If that satisfies you in terms of your own existence then I will say you've already lost long before we ever exchanged a single word.

You literally talked about 'saving the world' and playing power games—semantics aside, the implication was obvious. Save the rest of your psychoanalysis for Sunday. Let’s see how your standalone points hold up live on air.

Let's be intellectually honest here. My main point was being in a position to offer value to others. You tried to bait me into sounding delusional and admitting I have a messiah complex. Which I don't particularly but I still played into your point because I do believe that being competent at solving your own and others problem is key to life especially as a man. If my impact scales to a worldwide level and even beyond to the point that I can help mankind as a whole then once again, it would be my pleasure to try my best help us get to our next stage of evolution.

@yetineti Even better.

@yetineti takes me up on my offer to have a live streamed conversation on our disagreements about what makes a man valuable. It'll be streamed live this Sunday 8 pm EST on my Youtube channel. Feel free to come up with questions for us to answer and we'll address them on air.

A lot of guys have egos and think that game is beneath them. So you're sort of proving my point. You know people only so much until you get intimate with them. People that have low confidence and self-concept tend to be bitter and resentful and it comes up in all kinds of unpredictable ways. That's why the adage is be careful of people that can't attract women. There is basically always something nasty beyond the surface otherwise it would be a self-correction problem. Women are not that complicated.

You're delusional and love to evade points. When pushed you use AI to make the points for you and when I still sit down to counter them, your ego can't take it and you have a meltdown. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You do not bring much value to conversation and highly intellectual topics seem to be above your grasp and lead to you getting overly emotional.

I think we could be getting there fast. The epstein files blew a lid on it and it's hard to burrow the fact that elites are above the law and commit unspeakable crimes now. Massive amounts of people are investigating it further as we speak and AI will only help their investigative possibilities. Exciting time to be alive. I think realistically we will enter a massive golden age of humanity if not in the 2030s in the 2040s and beyond. Which is hilarious because the global sentiment is quite pessimistic at the moment. There is a WW3 possibility looming but I believe we can either avoid it or get through it and come out better, stronger and more united as a species.

We can go point by point, that's fine. My thesis assumes an omnipotent God. If you want to put limits on God in your argument then fine but that goes against most definitions of God. Doesn't mean it's not valid but that's not really what you've claimed so far. I wouldn't call it a motive, it's a description of a phenomenon. If God sees people being people suffering and its not that relevant to him that's by definition boredom. Enjoyment from an omnipotent being would lead to increasing the frequency of something since you find it valuable and I guess enjoyable. I didn't only present those possibilities in the thread, I said perhaps God finds it valuable to reality. Nobody made a credible defence of that point and I don't think it makes much sense so I didn't focus on it. That's absolutely possible. We cannot use that to make base our live out of though. At least not without evidence pointing towards it. That's like saying why don't we encourage murder because perhaps there is a good reason for it since it's allowed in reality. It's a demonstrably false point though. Not every human that has lived has been literally tortured. There could've been a single instance of torture in all of history and it never happen again and that would fit the standard that every possible experience can occur. I'm asking why suffering happens at such high frequency ubiquitously throughout mankind Just because I don't fold to propositions that go against mine doesn't mean I haven't entertained them. I have gone through every single one. I could still be biased and ultimately wrong but I haven't seen evidence to support that fact. No.