Posts by ruggeddriver21

Do you ever feel like porn has just kind of... warped our entire approach to sex and intimacy?
It feels like we've conjured up this totally distorted, hyper-intense version of reality just because people spend so much time clicking through endless tabs on their screens—it’s all just raw and completely unrealistic, isn't it?

I'm curious, though... what’s the actual fallout here? Like, how much is this stuff truly messing with the way the average person behaves in real life?

Thanks so much, Volver, for such a thorough breakdown.
Personally, I can't help but look at this whole thing through a comedic lens. It reminds me of that classic Monty Python sketch where John Cleese plays a professor performing a live demonstration with his wife for a room full of students who couldn't care less about what's happening.

At this point, pornography has basically rebranded itself as a sort of "self-help tool."
When you think about how content creators target specific interests, most viewers are really just picking from a menu of available products based on a whim or an immediate physical urge.

The sheer ubiquity of adult content has actually made its presence feel deviant.
Creators are constantly hunting for new, wilder gimmicks just to grab attention or keep people from clicking away.
Relating that back to our own tastes, we’re essentially watching a performance that we feel indirectly involved in.
Of course, the vast majority of people will never—and would never want to—actually participate.
So, it’s pure fiction. It's all just theater right in front of your eyes.

There isn't any real artistic merit to be found here.
Everything is driven by the bottom line and the exploitation of human impulses.

kadkad, the content is so pervasive that it feels almost annoying because it doesn't touch upon any real substance.
It’s really just a form of entertainment designed solely to cater to an individual's solitary urges.

I’ve heard some wild claim floating around that pornography makes up about 98% of the internet...
Either way, you can't escape it. It’s everywhere.
Just everywhere.

It feels like this massive, hyper-commercialized industry is just cranking out more and more content, relentlessly pushing itself into our digital lives.
The thing is, most of it is pure fiction.
You have these performers who are essentially playing roles, creating content both professionally and through their private personas, which has even ended up being analyzed in deep philosophical essays online.

I’m honestly not sure how to frame this topic without sounding a bit broad, but my general take is that porn exists primarily to serve physical cravings and impulses.
There isn't really any substance there for personal growth—it’s just a fleeting, somewhat relaxing distraction that bears absolutely no resemblance to actual real life.

At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

Jacob Cooper5 said:Slow down there, buddy. 😁
If a bull uses its horns as its primary weapon—which it does—and a man uses his words, how on earth did you jump straight to "personal values" and "character metrics"? That's quite a leap... A bull will use those horns to gore the first guy who dares get too close to its herd, and a man will use his words to tear apart the first benefactor who tries to cut his benefits...

Now, you definitely don't want "principled" killers or rapists. Nor would you want them in politicians—the kind whose biggest achievement is basically ensuring things aren't any worse than they already were.

Hmm...
I think we all carry this little genetic chip inside us that actually bypasses our higher moral reasoning and conscious thought.
At the end of the day, when things get heavy and we face a crisis, we’re really just creatures trying to survive...
Maybe we don't want to look at that darker side of ourselves, but believe me, it's definitely there.
It’s woven into our very fabric because, honestly, it's how we protect ourselves.
Didn't we all feel that same primal fear the moment those first sparks started flying?!

Jacob Cooper5 said:Slow down there, buddy. 😁
If a bull uses its horns as its primary weapon—which it does—and a man uses his words, how on earth did you jump straight to "personal values" and "character metrics"? That's quite a leap... A bull will use those horns to gore the first guy who dares get too close to its herd, and a man will use his words to tear apart the first benefactor who tries to cut his benefits...

Now, you definitely don't want "principled" killers or rapists. Nor would you want them in politicians—the kind whose biggest achievement is basically ensuring things aren't any worse than they already were.

It seems everyone operates by their own set of rules, which naturally leads us into different categories of principles;

-personal principles (values shaped by how you were raised, your inner circle, life experience...)
-universal principles (shared values promoted within a community or society...)
-cause-and-effect principles (an individual's independent way of reacting to things...)

jadeheron5 said:Without principles, you aren't really anyone. You have to have them just to possess a legitimate opinion.

So, the whole debate regarding principles is actually a distinction between good, well-founded ones—built on solid arguments—and bad ones, which are trivial or driven purely by ego.

Take this, for example: a principled person will stand up for justice as long as the facts support it. Meanwhile, someone who lacks true principles might still claim to have them, but they are poor principles, so they'll side with whatever benefits them through some crooked logic.
Lately, everyone seems to be talking about "authenticity," but honestly? That's just a synonym for being principled.

I'm not sure I follow...

Look, there's personal logic and then there's social conditioning. For example, we know a criminal is "bad" because they take things from others.
We also have a shared social code that tells us lying, cheating, and stealing are wrong and should be penalized.
That part is obvious.
You don't need to dress it up with big words like "principles."
To me, it feels like "principles" is just a decorative term—an unnecessary upgrade to something already understood.
It’s pretty straightforward.
A thief is a problem in society because they threaten the stability of everyone else.
That’s just common sense for any thinking human being. Why would you even need a formal principle for that?

In my view, "principles" are often just pretension. It's a way for people to puff themselves up and act superior.

A principle without an actual argument is basically just food without any seasoning.
Without explaining the cause-and-effect behind it, you don't really have a principle; you just have a rule.
I honestly think only people who truly grasp how their actions ripple out to affect the community should be claiming to live by principles.
In reality, we don't hold onto principles for our own sake—we do it for everyone else. It’s really just a way to add value to our lives, or maybe just a little way to polish up our egos.

Just imagine this:
"I don't buy American products because of my principles."
"I won't touch pistachios because they're sourced from Iran."
"I refuse to spend a dime on a telecom company owned by foreign interests."

Most of the time, "principles" are nothing more than window dressing without any real substance. They're just another way for us to signal something to the people around us.

steelridge58 said:So, what you're describing is using a principle as an alibi, a convenient excuse or a way to justify oneself, which essentially hides
Or, it’s just taking the path of least resistance.

It's really just the cosmetic veneer of an offended person that completely vanishes the moment you actually offer them an apology.

In reality, when things like this happen, we're talking about a very conditional type of being "uncompromising."

I was mulling over a few different ways this could go..
Maybe it's stubbornness backed by logic.
Or maybe it's just stubbornness without any logic at all.
Pure defiance.
It's basically the fetus stage of a principle.

That was actually a really well-put, original way to frame it.

Principles are nothing more than personal declarations.

🙂

At its core, a principle can often just be a way to hide the actual reason why someone is acting a certain way.
Honestly, I've noticed that some people, after getting burned or frustrated by how others behave, start manufacturing these rigid principles purely for their own benefit.
They use these rules to distance themselves from people they don't want to associate with, while simultaneously sending a little signal to everyone else that they're "principled" or have high standards.
But if you actually dig a little deeper—and I mean really ask "why" at least three times—you'll find the true motivation behind those social boundaries.

Let's face it, people don't always get along in groups. It’s common to have disagreements or even full-blown arguments, and to justify their decision to stop hanging out with those specific people, individuals will pull out a "principle" from their personal social handbook. It makes their choice feel more structured.

They set a standard for themselves and then stick to it.
And hey, I'm not judging them.
In fact, I think it's pretty civilized. They aren't being aggressive, they aren't insulting anyone, and they aren't encouraging bad behavior in others.
A principle is clearly a useful tool for managing social needs when things get messy or tense.

I have a lot of respect for people who are honest enough to explain the real cause and motive behind their convictions.
However, those who parade their "principles" around like they're some badge of superior moral character—without being able to admit what's actually driving them—aren't really worth taking too seriously.

jadeheron5 said:Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason.
Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument.
So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.

Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word?
It's a stretch...

At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.

The phrase "leading the charge" feels a bit distorted to me, if I can get away with a little dark humor.
Principles are essentially a personal declaration.

Principles act more like tools for people who haven't quite had the guts to shape their own reality, so they lean on them to maintain a sense of fiction.

So, I’ve been sitting here mulling over a few different ways this could play out...
It could be a case of stubbornness backed by solid logic.
Or, it might just be pure, unadulterated spite without any reasoning at all.
Then there's just plain old defiance.
Honestly, it’s basically the core principle of the whole thing.

Jacob Cooper5 said:It’s hard to believe you don't have any principles at all. But maybe this lack of them is just another way of saying you don't follow any set rules—that moment when you decide to do exactly what the crowd isn't expecting.

Look, I’ll be blunt here—and honestly, I shouldn't be, given that I haven't even bothered to look up the actual dictionary definition of a "principle."
I guess I'm just motivated by how the everyday folks I run into in my business dealings use the word; I won't claim I act out of some grand moral code.

I didn't take the whole concept too seriously. To me, it seems like people who are just making noise without actually understanding anything tend to cling to "principles" as a defense mechanism—it feels more like wounded egos than anything else.
They throw the word around like they're some sort of lost souls who can't even define their own values, using it as a convenient little punctuation mark to describe everyone else while making themselves look better. It's all just chaos, really.

Do I have principles?
Hmm.

Let me try to sum this up...
I don't know.
Is a principle a stance?
I definitely have stances.
Is a principle a rule?
I've got my own set of rules.

So, what exactly is a principle?
Who is Gabriel?

There's no such thing.
Most of the time, it's just cosmetic fluff used by someone feeling insulted, which tends to evaporate the second they get a sincere apology.

Jacob Cooper5 said:At its most basic level, having principles is just about ideological consistency.
When you claim that "people with principles are intense," what you're really talking about is the friction between those "specialized personal principles" and whatever social norms happen to be trending at the moment.
So, what’s *your* principle as this supposedly "intense person"? What are you actually doing for the good of your community if that's even part of the equation... if there even is a difference...

The thing is, principles can be totally manufactured by ideology.
Honestly, I see a principle as just another tool in the human toolkit.
It’s often just window dressing for people who don't know how to build a real argument.
Or, it's used by those who are just really good at twisting their rules to fit their needs.

Do I personally hold any principles?
I don't think so.
I don't really lean on them. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the point would be.
I prefer to try and diagnose my own stance and explain it clearly without hiding behind the phrase "it's the principle of the thing."

I only started this thread because I wanted to dig into what a principle actually is...

Harold Doyle3 said:It reminds me of those trials in Nuremberg, where people tried to justify their actions by claiming they were just following orders.
They were incredibly principled when it came to discipline and duty... but principles ought to be scrutinized—unless they're guided by reason and conscience.

Circumstances shift. Taking a hardline principled stance today might become a heavy burden tomorrow. That principle, even if it started out noble, can eventually turn into something caricatured, if not outright destructive.
Stalin was "principled" when he refused to trade for his captured son... he viewed him as a coward, just like all the other soldiers in the Red Army.

I'm with you on this one. That's a very fair way to put it.
In a way, having a principle is just a fancy form of stubbornness. It's defiance.
A principle is often just a byproduct of grit, anger, or old grudges. It acts as a sort of buffer.
Think of a principle as a tool; you should use it when the situation calls for it, rather than letting it own you.

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

Spot on.
I’ve noticed a massive reliance on "principles" among people who just struggle through life by constantly folding. They always seem to end up in a defensive crouch.
A principle is basically the poor man's capital.
The wealthy don't need principles. They have money.
Anyway, that's just my little theory on how things tend to play out in certain parts of the world.
Principles can be a form of self-delusion or just a way to inflate one's own importance when there isn't much substance there.
Honestly, I haven't heard anyone particularly brilliant using "principles" as a shield. They’d rather fight with actual arguments. To me, clinging to principles feels a bit small-minded—though, mind you, that’s just my contrarian take, and I'm probably not being very logical here!

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

A principle is really an extension of character. It’s almost like an accessory you wear. You hear people say, "That guy has principles..."
But doesn't everyone?
Clearly, they don't.
A principle is more like a pet you decide to keep.

steelridge58 said:That opening line feels like one of those old folk wisdom sayings that really hits home because it's born from actual life experience, teaching us all about consistency, trust, and reliability—about making promises where nothing binds you formally except for the weight of your own word.

I think you can definitely link this to ethical principles.

As for a free interpretation of a principle—well, I think you’ve already started touching on that with your follow-up questions, suggesting that interpreting or understanding something comes down to our own personal values. These are the yardsticks derived from our character or our natural disposition which serve as our foundation for judgment; it's "free" because it's deeply personal, unique to the individual, and maybe even quite intimate since any interpretation rests entirely on the subject.

Building on that, I’d also consider the principle of contradiction, which might be tucked away deep within the core of our being, allowing for shifts or changes in our state under the influence of causality, where change happens because of a specific cause. This might explain why someone seems inconsistent compared to how they used to be, when in reality, there was a seed of that contradiction already there, waiting to trigger a future change.

Actually, now that I've set the stage for this topic, I'd say a principle is essentially the price we pay for being who we are.
And, let's face it, everything has a price.
The principle is that cost.

Everything carries a cost if we are true to ourselves, even those moments that look like inconsistency but are actually just the result of causal forces driving a change in our state.

There is a price to pay for staying true to our principles, provided they are structurally integrated into our very personality—which is the only time we can truly say a 'principle is the price of our being.' But there is also a cost to the inconsistencies that spring from that same source, acting according to our internal values. In both scenarios, we are talking about being consistent with ourselves or our persona—whoever we are or whoever we might become—but it isn't all simple, because then you have to factor in ethical principles, their inherent "shoulds," and the heavy price of trying to live up to them.

People get so tangled up in their principles that when they eventually change their lifestyle or outlook, those old rules start to feel like a burden because they clash with their current happiness.
It makes me wonder: can a truly self-aware person ever really be strictly principled?
The real question is, what’s the point of chasing some intense impulse if all it does is wreck your peace of mind?
I mean, honestly, why even bother holding onto a principle if it doesn't actually yield any real results?
You hear people say it all the time—that clinging to your ideals is just a recipe for disaster when you're out there trying to survive the grind of everyday life.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aha, so this is what you categorize as principles.🙂
Fine... perhaps. But I would be more inclined to call those temporary preferences rather than true principles. Principles tend to be more permanent things—like the working principle of a transformer, or in principle (as a rule), and so on.

However, if that is what you meant, then I agree that there is logic to it—it is pure political activism, 😉even though it functions as a form of non-action: not consuming, not buying, not participating... something almost Gandhian. It is essentially passive-aggression.😬

From what I gather, there are two kinds: steady principles and shaky ones.
For example, someone might refuse to buy products from Mexico because of their principles, even though they’re actually just reacting to those unfortunate events back in the 90s.
A shaky principle might just depend on your current mood or whatever circumstances are hitting you at the moment, which leads to applying an unstable principle:
Like, if you haven't gotten anything done all day, then out of principle, I don't want to grab a coffee with you...
So, really, a principle can also be used as a way to teach someone a lesson.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Aha, so this is what you categorize as principles.🙂
Fine... perhaps. But I would be more inclined to call those temporary preferences rather than true principles. Principles tend to be more permanent things—like the working principle of a transformer, or in principle (as a rule), and so on.

However, if that is what you meant, then I agree that there is logic to it—it is pure political activism, 😉even though it functions as a form of non-action: not consuming, not buying, not participating... something almost Gandhian. It is essentially passive-aggression.😬

Yeah... passive aggression... That makes sense. Action and reaction.

Harold Doyle3 said:The cost of a principle depends entirely on the "market conditions."
As long as it remains useful, it holds value.

Man, staying principled is tough. It’s exactly what you said—it’s a reflection of the market.
What’s the point of having principles if you're broke?
What good are they when you're starving?

I mean, what are principles actually *for*? Are they just some way we choose to carry ourselves around others?
Does anyone ever introduce themselves like this: "Good day... my name is Mr. Johnny, and I live by certain principles.">
The response would almost certainly be, "And what exactly are those principles for, sir?"
- Principles act as a sort of personal discipline—a way to measure the world around me. It isn't some universal standard, but rather a private metric.
A principle is a personal choice.

There are quite a few different ways to look at it.
For instance,

Principle 1:
- I don't want to buy American products because I feel Americans are responsible for a lot of the world's problems.

Does that make sense? Does such a principle even hold water?
Well, for the person practicing it, it absolutely does.
It's an intentional choice. An internal boundary. A standard set by one's own conscience.

But hey, how much "sense" it actually makes is probably a debate worth having!

There’s an old saying:

A bik is tied by its horns, but a man is bound by his words.

Doesn't that strike you as being deeply connected to the idea of having a principle?
What does "free interpretation" of a principle even mean, anyway?
Is it our core values? Our internal yardstick for character? Something like that...

I’ve noticed that people who actually live by a principle tend to be quite focused individuals—the kind of folks who really guard their integrity. It’s not exactly a widespread trait among the general public, though. Sometimes, having a strong sense of principle can be a loud part of your personality, and people might even call you selfish for sticking to it, but I think there’s something genuinely beautiful and valuable about it.
It essentially maps out how we relate to the world around us.
It grants us a sense of dignity, while simultaneously sending a message to society that staying true to oneself comes with a cost.

Actually, now that I’ve set the stage, I’d say a principle is simply the price we pay to remain ourselves.
And well, everything in this life has a price tag, doesn't it?
A principle is just that price.

What do you all think? Am I on the right track here?

Around the tail end of the 5th century BCE, a tradition began taking shape that we usually attribute to Mo Tia;

Everything in existence is ultimately arranged to serve human interests.

Humans possess spirit, life, and perception, topped off with an innate sense of justice; that’s what makes us the most noble creatures on Earth. – Hs¨un Tzu from the 3rd century BCE

Back in the 4th century BCE, Aristotle laid out his famous hierarchy of living things, where he argued the human soul sits comfortably above those of plants and animals because we carry that unique mix of rational, vegetative, and sensory capacities.

Then you have Mencius explaining back in the 1st century CE how humanity belongs to an entirely different order than the rest of the animal kingdom. We are infused with life, sure, but in a way that is fundamentally distinct from the vast majority of other living beings.

Now, even though we share those basic drives seen in all creatures—self-interest, the survival instinct, and at best, a fuzzy sense of the transcendent—we also have our own incredible capacity for elevating our consciousness.

The big question for Mencius really boils down to human nature; is our core essence inherently good, bad, malicious, or just neutral? Compassion is baked into who we are... yet things like shame, hatred, modesty, the desire to please others, and discrimination are the traits that define us.

Mencius also points out something fascinating;
The human body has 12 major joints to mirror the 12 months of the year. It has 366 smaller joints because it was believed a year consists of 366 days. Inside the womb, a person has five organs to match the five elemental forces in the universe. Our eyes and ears correspond to the Sun and the Moon, our veins to rivers, our breath to the wind, and our hair to the stars. Even the roundness of the head mirrors the shape of the heavens, and our shifts between sorrow and joy reflect the cosmic balance of yin and yang.

You can find these same perspectives tucked away in the Greco-Roman worlds, ideas that later shaped the very foundation of Western philosophy.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Honestly, he’s just another guy whining about his own fate. It’s human, sure, but you shouldn't take it all too seriously. ☕

Oh, come on now...
It isn't just whining. The man was running for his life from the Ohran or the NKVD. He was escaping a damp prison cell and the very real threat of death.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Hierarchy is a must—you could even say it's necessary for freedom itself—but the real question is what kind of hierarchy we're talking about and what's actually backing it up?

It matters...

It definitely matters..
See, what kind of hierarchy ends up existing depends entirely on who is in charge..
At the end of the day, it always comes down to the quality of the people involved..