[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 264x282, 1364189659410.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762378 No.4762378[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So how is loyalty master morality, exactly?

>> No.4762662

Can't believe no one has answered this.

>> No.4762669

shitposter pls die

>> No.4762674

>>4762662
Because the answer is fucking obvious.

>> No.4762795

>>4762674
Not really. Nietzsche holds loyalty as a shining example of the morality of the ancients--which it was--but how is subordinating your will to another's, master morality?

>> No.4762811

When Nietzsche talks about master-slave morality, it is more of a sociological concept. Master morality, even in Today's society, really does mean bending your will to others. What this is, would be the inversion of morality Nietzsche refers to, and would go along with the concept of 'good' in master morality, which is viewed as 'evil' by the slave morality.

>> No.4762815

>>4762811
But that isn't entirely true, since clearly Judas's betrayal is a significant thing in Christian morality.

>> No.4762823

Maybe it has a slightly different connotation in German. Maybe it's more fraternity. Loyalty to ones friends.
Or it is a fuck up flaw in his thinking.
>>4762674
Is that the "obvious" answer you were referring to?

>> No.4762836

>>4762815
Of course it's true, we're talking about what Nietzsche defines, not the bible.

You do know how the concepts 'good', 'evil', and 'bad' relate to each other right?

>> No.4762849

>>4762823
Loyalty to an equal is of course a lot different, but he citing loyalty as an ancient ethic, and that loyalty was as often about loyalty to one's "betters" as one's equals.

>>4762836
Yes. And most of what Nietzsche says about morality is consistent, it's simply the loyalty part that isn't.

>> No.4762868

>>4762849
>it's simply the loyalty part that isn't.
The loyalty part is what ties it all together.

If the slaves incorporated loyalty into their morality they would no longer be slaves anymore, hence why the herd morality has certain characteristics and being loyal and inclusive is not one of those characteristics. The lower you are, the less essential you are to morality in general, and the easier you find it to simply have your will subjected to the vicissitudes of herd morality, instead of the smaller, closer-knit, loyalty driven masters.

I remember one instance, I believe in Beyond Good and Evil, where Nietzsche talks how true noble people have a tendency to look down, but these people are viewed as bad in master morality because they are not looking up.

>> No.4762869

>>4762378
By being self-serving.

/dreadlockmana qwuan puff an

>> No.4762876

Who's a slave loyal to? No one but himself and his needs. The masses have no sense of loyalty except to that that benefits them.
A master is loyalty to a higher power, like God (just not the Christian God).

>> No.4762877

>>4762868
How does Aegisthus fit in?

>> No.4762879

>>4762877
How about we talk about Nietzsche instead of trying to question my ethos?

>> No.4762882

>>4762876
>slaves were never loyal
Hardly true, chum, hardly true. They SHOULDN'T have been, but they were often enough.

>> No.4762895

>>4762879
Aegisthus relates to Neiszcte since he was classical, if mythical, example of immorality.

>> No.4762898

>>4762882
do you know many slaves?

>> No.4762899

>>4762882
>>4762895
who don't you show pics like butterthighs

>> No.4762904

>>4762868
>If the slaves incorporated loyalty into their morality they would no longer be slaves anymore
But... They're loyal to their masters.
Nietzsche-headache coming on.

>> No.4762911

>>4762876
Lukewarm, try again anon, you're almost there. The masses of herd morality are loyal to god and to their neighbors, but because they feel it as a compelling, altruistic virtue. And this is where it gets interesting, because morality is corrupted by the bible in this sense. Love thy neighbor, indeed. You are compelled to do so and self-sacrifice yourself. Remember though, everyone is a mixture of master and slave morality, everyone needs to eventually adopt the concepts of master morality in order to live. To abase themselves in the name of their 'noble' masters. Your actions are judged alone, without consideration for you, because your actions should embody certain characteristics of a moral character (whatever the master morality views as good), not yourself. And this is where the abstraction becomes severe and results in the 'pathos of distance'

>> No.4762912

>>4762882

Because being loyal serves their immediate needs by giving them favor to the master. However, the moment the slave realizes this service to be unbeneficial for himself, logically, he stops. Hence, it isn't real loyalty, but a pragmatic service. A master remains loyal even when it becomes unbeneficial. A master kills and dies for his "brothers/authority" regardless of the circumstance. A slave's loyalty depends solely on the circumstance. True loyalty is a virtue of masters.

>> No.4762913

>>4762898
No. I'm not sure what your point is, unless you are suggesting that being loyal is inherently incompatible with being a slave.

>>4762899
Because then my body would quickly eclipse my conversation.

>> No.4762916

>>4762912
Dying for the sake of another can be an action of loyalty.

>> No.4762917

>>4762904
>But... They're loyal to their masters.
If they were more loyal to their masters as you say, they would not be so reactive and would be more active. Therein lies the trap. Once you are deemed as being reactive, you are not loyal to these masters.

Nietzsche's concepts were not meant to be singled out and taken as pieces of a puzzle to be looked at, the entire constructed puzzle is to be looked at. Beyond Good and Evil, the entire book, is just one concept. Much like how The Genealogy of Morals was a sociological concept.

>> No.4762919

>>4762913

> eclipse
Not the best word choice, hamplanet

>> No.4762923

>>4762916

Yes, but, in other cases, it isnt.

>> No.4762924

>>4762919
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, guess I left myself open for that one. But why the venom, Anon?

>> No.4762929

>>4762923
Sure. The point is that loyalty can serve no purpose but itself, and in fact come at the expense of all other purpose.

>> No.4762935

>>4762913
>Because then my body would quickly eclipse my conversation.
So you're legit hating on butterfly? wow

>> No.4762937
File: 42 KB, 240x400, 1237105472494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4762937

>>4762913

>> No.4762938

>>4762935
No? I liek butterfly

>>4762937
;)

>> No.4762939

>>4762938
>No? I liek butterfly
Why are you slyly calling her a camwhore then? Slutshaming goes on /pol/, not here.

>> No.4762944

>>4762929

In that case, wouldn't loyalty be a exclusively a virtue for the masters, considering that they would be the only ones with the luxury to uphold such a pointless virtue?

>> No.4762956

>>4762939
I'm not. I just don't want to posters to be talking about my body in ever damn thread I show up in, begging for pics plox. I seriously fucking don't, because it would make ME unhappy, not because I frown on that sort of thing of itself.

>>4762944
No. Loyalty of subordinate soldiers is an important theme in Homer, it's duty.

>> No.4762961

>>4762956

Then loyalty is not pointless then?

>> No.4762962

Shit nigga if it don't agree with your values and you've gone about and slayed the dragon of thou shalt then don't be loyal or what you think being loyal is. Whatevs. Just cus Nietzsche is a specific kind of star or extolls a specific star doesn't mean you should try to be that exact star, copying its footwork.

Jive on his general groove but make up your moves and maybe copy the ones you think look real cool.

Nietzsche is not to be read as putting forward some systematic ethics. Getting mired in debates like these (especially when Nietzsche is fucking about and egging on 19th century yuros) loses track of what you should be doing.

>> No.4762964

lol I don't think anybody in this thread ever read genealogy of morals.

>>4762795
how about you read the fucking book... the word loyalty is used once in the whole book.

>> No.4762966

>>4762961
Of course not, it serves the masters.

>> No.4762970

>>4762964
I know. But loyalty was a huge part of ancient morality. Are we talking about ancient morality, or some special construction Nietzsche romantically and symbolically refers to as ancient morality?

>> No.4762982

>>4762956
so you're saying that you're better than our dear butters?

smh, i'ma sleep

>> No.4762994

>>4762982
No, I'm saying I don't want how I look to be a topic on this board especially when it can distract from other topics I'm interested in, simply by my participating in said topics.

>> No.4763008

femineckbeard is truly one of the worst posters on this board.

>> No.4763010

>>4762970
Nietzsche is not trying to revert back to ancient morality, he's too aware of the historically determined nature of morality to think that there can be any reversion. Creation of morality, of good and bad, is one of the loftiest powers of man. The creation of good and evil, however, marked the point at which morality took on the nature of driving men down to depths rather than pushing them to newer heights. The good in morality was secondary to what was evil in morality, gaining it's "goodness" in relation only to what was "evil." The master-morality is one that is determined with seeking out what is good and living life above the bad. The slave hates and scorns evil because he bases his entire morality and life in relation to that "evil." The master simply does not care for the bad because he is above it. His life is determined by love of the good. The slave, by hatred of evil.

You're missing the point of The Genealogy. It's a deconstruction of modern values and morals so as to allow for the creation of new values and morals. Sure, these morals and values can look towards the past for inspiration but they decidedly can not simply revert back to it.

>> No.4763015

>>4762994
He has to be just teasing.

>> No.4763016 [DELETED] 

>>4762994
Fuck off retard. You're a mutilated man on HRT and will eventually kill yourself, please spare us and get it over with.

>> No.4763017

>>4762970
And get off /lit/, actually read Nietzsche, then come back without a tripcode so we can have a non shit discussion.

"Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: thus he discovered the good and bad of many peoples. No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad.
No people could live without first valuing; if a people will maintain itself, however, it must not value as its neighbour valueth.
Much that passed for good with one people was regarded with scorn and contempt by another: thus I found it. Much found I here called bad, which was there decked with purple honours.
Never did the one neighbour understand the other: ever did his soul marvel at his neighbour's delusion and wickedness.
A table of excellencies hangeth over every people. Lo! it is the table of their triumphs; lo! it is the voice of their Will to Power.
It is laudable, what they think hard; what is indispensable and hard they call good; and what relieveth in the direst distress, the unique and hardest of all,—they extol as holy.
Whatever maketh them rule and conquer and shine, to the dismay and envy of their neighbours, they regard as the high and foremost thing, the test and the meaning of all else.
Verily, my brother, if thou knewest but a people's need, its land, its sky, and its neighbour, then wouldst thou divine the law of its surmountings, and why it climbeth up that ladder to its hope.
"Always shalt thou be the foremost and prominent above others: no one shall thy jealous soul love, except a friend"—that made the soul of a Greek thrill: thereby went he his way to greatness.
"To speak truth, and be skilful with bow and arrow"—so seemed it alike pleasing and hard to the people from whom cometh my name—the name which is alike pleasing and hard to me.
"To honour father and mother, and from the root of the soul to do their will"—this table of surmounting hung another people over them, and became powerful and permanent thereby.
"To have fidelity, and for the sake of fidelity to risk honour and blood, even in evil and dangerous courses"—teaching itself so, another people mastered itself, and thus mastering itself, became pregnant and heavy with great hopes.
Verily, men have given unto themselves all their good and bad. Verily, they took it not, they found it not, it came not unto them as a voice from heaven.
Values did man only assign to things in order to maintain himself—he created only the significance of things, a human significance! Therefore, calleth he himself "man," that is, the valuator.
Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.
Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear it, ye creating ones!
Change of values—that is, change of the creating ones. Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator."

>> No.4763018

>>4763016
Stop it. Please.

>> No.4763056

>>4763018
You two are a veritable dynamic duo of irritation sorry, butterfly, but I don't think she's in to chicks

>> No.4763090

>>4763010
Okay, maybe I misunderstood him. It *seemed* like he portraying ancient morality as *the* master morality, like they were synonymous, but maybe I'm taking him too absolutely.

>> No.4763106

>>4763056
From what I've gathered, she's either bi or bi-curious. But has a boyfriend anyway. All irrelevant really.

>> No.4763117

>>4763090

He derives the term of master morality from his conception of one-half the morality of the ancient world: the morality of the masters of ancient society. The morality of the slaves is every bit as ancient as the morality of the masters, it's just that what is passed down from antiquity was produced by masters and is concerned with the morality of the masters (and Nietzsche is okay with this, he disfavors the slave morality.)

To answer your original question: the "heroic" morality of, say, Homer doesn't necessarily praise loyalty in the modern understanding. Achilles is terribly "disloyal" to his fellows when he abandons the battlefield to sulk after the insults of the high king. Despite the bloodshed and destruction that is the consequence of his decision, the act is not portrayed as bad, as unworthy of Achilles. Nonetheless it is understood by every character in the poem that Achilles _should_ swallow his pride and come back to the war. When he does, it is because the war hits him as personally as did Agamemnon's insult, not because he remembers that it is his "duty" to fight when he is needed or because his grievance is found to be invalid. That is to say, what is valued in this ancient morality is not self-subordination to Agamemnon as such, but rather remembering one's obligations to others, one's relationship to them.

>> No.4763128

Does this chick even Nietzsche? What the hell's going on in here?

>> No.4763132
File: 129 KB, 1120x812, your posting makes freddy sad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4763132

>>4763128

i say, they let all kinds of riffraff wear a tripcode these days

>> No.4763227

>>4763117
HOMER doesn't praise loyalty, but his characters do, the culture he portrayed does. I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but Homer is a bit on the critical side of his culture.

Anyway, I don't think Achilles is a very good example about loyalty, since Agamemnon betrayed him first, which is a big deal since Achilles knows he's going to die if he fights that war. That's why I used the example of Aegisthus, a character who was representative of being traitorous.

>> No.4763256

not to derail this mildly interesting conversation but, – is butterfly really a qt?

>> No.4763287

>>4763256
yes

>> No.4763378
File: 1.22 MB, 2304x3072, 1397197740893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4763378

>>4763287
<3
I haven't a chance of meeting face to face
Contentedly I sleep imagining nose to nape

>> No.4764291

why are tripniggers such cancer

>> No.4764313

Thou goest to woman? Forget not thy whip

>> No.4764334
File: 48 KB, 641x482, butterslut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4764334

>>4763256

>> No.4764776

>>4762924
Because, as of late, my dreams have become more consistent than my waking world.

>> No.4764783

>>4763106
bisexuality is the absolute worst. it's like agnosticism. just fuck off already

>> No.4764813

>>4764783
what are you talking bisexuality is clearly the masterrace of sexuality
pansexuals are enormous faggots who claim they don't see the difference between genders which is obviously retarded; and straight and gay people only get to try one gender

>> No.4764814

>>4764334
what is that thing

>> No.4764841

>>4762378
Consider a sense of being true - as in, being true to. Now compare this to the first sentence of Jenseits.

>> No.4765217

>>4764814
Your janitor.

>> No.4765389

>>4764813
master sexuality reporting in, we do have the most fun

Feminister misunderstands Nietzsche and this anon
>>4763010
pretty much nails it

You are building a reputation with your tripshitposts. That you need an identity in the first place here, on an anonymous board, speaks volumes about your attachments. But weakness is strength, right?

>> No.4765411

>>4765389
Strength for others

The Anon doesn't really give a good explanation since slave is presented as some sort of essence, like slaves think a certain way, masters think another way, which is fine when you're using the terms abstractly, but you're talking about actual slaves vs. actual masters, those generalizations cease to work.

>> No.4765792

>>4765389
>That you need an identity in the first place here, on an anonymous board, speaks volumes about your attachments
It's a cancerous attachment you b/tards carry around the boards, but I keep from criticizing as much as I can.
>But weakness is strength, right?
Yours. At times.
>Feminister misunderstands Nietzsche and this anon
'There are no dumb questions' they say. Sadly it's all still calculous to me.

>> No.4766012
File: 2.05 MB, 295x216, mfwthisthread.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766012

>>4762378

>women understanding loyalty

loyalty is active not reactive, otherwise it's not loyalty at all, no, not at all

>> No.4766056

Self-diagnosed sociopath master race here. Loyalty (and morality in general) makes you weak and manipulable.

>> No.4766070

>>4765411
still has not read the book huh...

>> No.4766092
File: 176 KB, 500x281, notreallyasociopath.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766092

>>4766056

>> No.4766314

>>4766012
This doesn't answer/refute/solve what she's saying

>>4766056
So are you female? This anon >>4766012
Thinks you are.

>>4766070
Can you explain it in simplest instructive terms. Because this anon >>4766056
Makes sense

>> No.4766324

>>4766314
⇒So are you female?

I am.

>> No.4766334

Obedience is God's command, therefore to be obedient is to be good.

Whether you agree or not, is your personal choice, but that's what it is.

>> No.4766336
File: 113 KB, 800x579, thosefacelines.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766336

>>4766324
>⇒

>> No.4766367

>>4766314

>This doesn't answer/refute/solve what she's saying

In regards to Nietzsche, I really can't put it any simpler than that. Loyalty is active, when it's reactive, it isn't loyalty.

>So are you female? This anon >>4766012 thinks you are.

Not necessarily a woman, just desperate for certainty. Also, not a sociopath.

>Can you explain it in simplest instructive terms. Because this anon >>4766056
makes sense

Really? That makes sense to you? Loyalty isn't even morality.

>> No.4766386

because you are literally a shitty pleb if you are not loyal.

>If, said Epictetus, we put away this trust, for which we are born, and plot against our neighbour's wife, what are we doing? Are we not pulling down and destroying? Whom? The man of trust, of honour, of piety. Is this all? Are we not overthrowing neighbourly feeling, friendship, the city itself? What position are we taking up?

>How am I to treat you, my fellow man? As a neighbour? As a friend? Of what kind? As a citizen? What trust am I to put in you? No doubt, if you were a piece of pottery, so cracked that you could not be used for anything, you would be cast out on the dunghill, and no one would stoop to take you thence: what shall we do with you then, if being a man you can fill no place becoming to a man? Granted that you cannot hold the position of a friend, can you hold that of a slave? And who will trust you? Will you not then consent to be cast upon a dunghill yourself as a useless vessel, as a thing for the dunghill?

>> No.4766400

>>4766324
Now the trick is, can you prove that?
AH but you can't.

>>4766367
>Loyalty is active, when it's reactive, it isn't loyalty.
So the übermensch's loyalty is actively .... loyal to ... -Now, I guessed other übermensch, above... but that didn't seem to jive. ...

>Loyalty isn't even morality.
Then why are we talking about Nietzsche's master morality of loyalty?

>> No.4766463

>>4766400
>Then why are we talking about Nietzsche's master morality of loyalty?

because the person who made the thread has not read the book.

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/GeneologyofMorals.pdf

All you need to read is first part. Read the first part and then re read the OP question.

>> No.4766479

>>4766336
Daumier is under-appreciated. That's all I have to say.

>> No.4766517

>>4766463
...Fine. Will read. But if you can't describe it...

>> No.4766521

>>4766517
>Hasnt read the Geneology of Morals
butterfuly pls

>> No.4766529
File: 385 KB, 900x1349, Daumier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766529

>>4766479
>Daumier

>> No.4766533

>>4766529
damn son
that painting is causing all types of feelings

>> No.4766531

>>4766521
She only reads about 12 books a year. And posts on a literature board.

>> No.4766563
File: 1.80 MB, 1576x2271, 1397275034786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766563

>>4766529
Yes, exactly, this is what I'm talking about. Despite making honorable additions to painting, cartooning, and printing I never see him mentioned.

>> No.4766564

>>4762913
>Because then my body would quickly eclipse my conversation.
So?

>> No.4766634

>>4766521
I'm starting with the Greeks. And have you sen this thread? No one can explain how "Master morality" can include loyalty. I'll poke my nose back into my copy of it.

>>4766533
Puts me right there. That lighting. That stench.

>>4766564
Are you kidding?

>> No.4766639

>>4766517

>But if you can't describe it...

Don't try to cheapen Nietzsche, you're only playing the fool.

If you want a description:
His immense subtlety strikes at the core of everything human. It's one thing to question him, this he invited, it's another thing to dismiss him. His notions are his own but his language was borrowed. He'll pay into your intentions with a wicked smile.

>> No.4766660

>>4766634
youre a curious person
i recommend violence if you want to understand, commit violence against someone

>> No.4766684 [SPOILER] 
File: 57 KB, 518x889, Bruce Spooked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766684

>>4766660
I'm a pacifist. That's such a bizarre idea.

I've hit people before.
I threw a circular saw at someone (it was just stuff I grabbed) and it embedded into the wall where their head had been a second earlier. It effected me. I picked up Shao li ideas after that

>> No.4766690

>>4766684
Shao lin. Pfffbb

>> No.4766691

>>4766684
>Shao li
?

>> No.4766697

>>4766690
>Shao lin
?

why, butterfly, were you throwing stuff at someone?

>> No.4766705

>>4766697
Teen angst. Some petty argument. Never a good enough excuse.
Well, self defense or the defense of others is the only excuse.

>> No.4766710

>>4766684
Maybe, but violence is familiar to a lot of people, men especially
Its something peculiar. It exists outside of anger, frustration, fear, anything 'emotional'

There is a certain sense in many people of violence as a powerful experience of overtaking something, whether inanimate or alive, of destruction and exertion.

To understand who has power, I think it is necessary to understand violence. People shy away from it but it is important exactly because of that. Some people find it so unpleasant that the others can use it with impunity.

Peace is morally preferable in all instances, but I don't believe humans are moral at all(not that thats the same as empathic). I may be cynical but the I see the world as a great mass of violence, it only takes a few evil to overtake a community of trusting good

>> No.4766717

>>4766705
We're all anonymous and looking for entertainment here.

Give us the deets.

>> No.4766731

>>4766717
I can't recall the reasons. The family was all chaotic after my mothers death. We were such infants then.
Home schooled Christian conservatives with no central parent anymore. (not going into the other parent) Björk and books saved my life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EimAfmb4igU

>> No.4766742

>>4762956
>No. Loyalty of subordinate soldiers is an important theme in Homer

Subordinate soldiers are not slaves, rather like comrades. Even tough they're not technically masters, their morality is typical master morality. There's nothing incoherent here. You're loyal to who you consider to be worthy of loyalty. This implies to admit some form of superiority, and to recognize that this superiority commands loyalty. It goes against the herd mentality that characterizes slave morality, as it binds together two individuals, as individuals, and in a hierarchical relationship. You can't have loyalty if you don"t have respect for some form of individual mastery.

>>4762962
We're not trying to emulate Nietzsche here, but to make sense of his writings.

>>4762994
>No, I'm saying I don't want how I look to be a topic on this board especially when it can distract from other topics I'm interested in, simply by my participating in said topics.

That's a lost cause and you know it. Drop the trip, hopefully it'll work.

>> No.4766752 [DELETED] 

>>4762378

You meang glorified slave and his master?

>> No.4766753

>>4766731
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EimAfmb4igU
omg this is beautiful
ive finally been conveted to bjork after all these years

>> No.4766756

>>4762378

You mean glorified slave and his master?

>> No.4766762

>>4766639
I haven't dismissed him.

>>4766742
I believe she does.

>> No.4766768

>>4766731
:(

>> No.4766769

Loyalty =/= submission

I am loyal to those I deem worthy because I deem my connection to them to be worth more than shortsighted exploitation of them.

/thread

>> No.4766792
File: 67 KB, 500x456, Meal that looks at you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4766792

>>4766769
If that's /thread then I cracked that here >>4762823
>Maybe it's more fraternity. Loyalty to ones friends.

>>4766768
I have a recollection from a lot earlier that I guess I've been itching to tell...

>> No.4766801

>>4766792
Go on, by all means.

>> No.4766818

>>4766742
>Subordinate soldiers are not slaves, rather like comrades.
But they go out and fight and Agamemnon often does not; but when they return, Agamemnon takes the lion's share of their plunder. When the Trojans are burning the ships, Agamemnon tries to abandon them, but Odysseus stops him; you could say Achilles is his comrade, but he was hiding as a girl before he was discovered and sent to fight--discovered by Odysseus, who himself tried to feign madness to avoid war. As for Aegisthus, he was never Agamemnon's comrade in any sense.

>> No.4766864 [DELETED] 

I forget how old I was exactly, but I remember this trip we took up in the mountains for this church feast or something. A barbecue in some bungalow by a little lake or stream. There was also a pool, and hot tub they tried to make into a kiddie pool.
On the ride there I remember noticing the hill peaks come into view, and as our car snaked around the roads the slowly shifted in and out of view. I was impressed enough to remember this sight, so I think this shows how short I was if not my age.
At one point I fainted from the heat and altitude and had to have a little lie down. Another event was nearly drowning in the tepid hot tub (I exaggerate this I was in no danger of drowning. It was just traumatic getting any amount of water in my nose like that)
But what I remember in the oddest way... While waiting in line for food, I was in the shade of the bungalow eaves (longer than eaves... Overhangs?) I crept a few feet to a glass windowed door, just snooping I suppose. Peering in I see at the other end of the room a silhouette of a girl my own age. It looked like she was changing into a bathing suite. I don't she saw me, or anyone else on my side of the door. I must have lingered there for just a moment, only tearing myself away from fear of getting caught, and I don't remember exactly what I was feeling, but it might have been what contributed to my fainting. The exact order of these events aren't certain.

>> No.4766870 [DELETED] 

>>4766864
>I don't THINK she saw me
And what other typos may remain... *sigh*

>> No.4766901

I forget how old I was exactly, but I remember this trip we took up in the mountains for this church feast or something. A barbecue in some bungalow by a little lake or stream. There was also a pool, and hot tub they tried to make into a kiddie pool.
On the ride there I remember noticing the hill peaks slowly come in and out view as our car snaked around the roads I was impressed enough to remember this sight, so I think this shows how short I was if not my age.
At one point I fainted from the heat and altitude and had to have a little lie down. Another event was nearly drowning in the tepid hot tub (I exaggerate this I was in no danger of drowning. It was just traumatic getting any amount of water in my nose like that)
But what I remember in the oddest way... While waiting in line for food, I was in the shade of the bungalow eaves (longer than eaves... Overhangs?) I crept a few feet to a glass windowed door, just snooping I suppose. Cupping my hands to the glass I peered in and saw at the other end of the room a silhouette of a girl my own age. It looked like she was changing into a bathing suite. I don't think she saw me, or anyone else on my side of the door. I must have lingered there for just a moment, only tearing myself away from fear of getting caught, and I don't remember exactly what I was feeling, but it might have been what contributed to my fainting. The exact order of these events aren't certain.

>> No.4766930

>>4766901
I knew it.

>> No.4766948

>>4766930
Knew what?

>> No.4766962

>>4765389
>Feminister
>misunderstanding something

No shit.

>> No.4767060

>>4766962
No shit I don't understand or else I wouldn't be asking the question that no one here has clearly answered; in fact I've seen several contradicting answers.

>> No.4767906

>>4766930
Knew what?

>> No.4768450

>>4766634
>Are you kidding?
No.