Posts by gentlelynx11

Morgan Peterson6 said:He’s in such a dark place—some days he even messages me saying he just wants to be erased, to simply cease existing. He’s craving nonexistence. He’s been on this deep journey of awakening for years now, soaking up all kinds of literature and life experiences... and now? He just can't find any meaning in anything. He says he hasn't found a single thing that gives him hope that we’re here for any reason other than being food.
He honestly views this whole world as a flawed piece of work—like something went wrong during the Creation. He thinks we're just programmed, living in some kind of matrix where entities stomp all over us like we're characters in a video game with zero free will. He doesn't find any joy in life; he's just deeply, profoundly unhappy. He can't stand the injustice and the sheer pain of this dimension. I can feel his sadness... and it makes me so sad just being around it. He’s one of those truly good, gentle souls... how am I even supposed to help him?

This sounds like a clinical case. Please, try to get him some professional psychiatric help.

Donna White50 said:Thomas Nelson25

You don't always have to lay every single emotion out on the table—honestly, just letting kids know they have the space to vent and talk about how they’re feeling is usually enough... The real issue is when all that negative stuff just sits there, building up and staying bottled inside for way too long. People who are actually mentally resilient and steady don't just snap under pressure, you know? But let's be real—most parents just aren't teaching their kids how to do that...
Look, let's be real—status, cash, and a sweet ride aren't just random things. They’re basically the roadmap to success. If a guy knows that having a fat bank account and a nice car is what actually draws women in, then yeah, he’s gonna go after that money and those wheels. That's just how society views value, right? And when you're young, you're just out there hungry for attention, dating, hanging out, and trying to get that respect from the crowd. Honestly, guys are just playing the game to fit in with whatever the people around them expect...

Thomas Nelson25

You're talking nonsense and honestly, you've had a grudge against me since that last thread, and you're just projecting it here.
Look, let me put it this way: when you're an athlete competing, there's no room for tears. When you're defending yourself, there's no room for emotions or crying. At work or in a business meeting, there's no room for tears, weakness, or being overly empathetic. When you're raising a kid, there's no room for crying in front of them... Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?
You can't just label masculinity as inherently bad, and you have zero proof that the world would be better if everyone acted "feminine." And frankly, you know why—even if women express their emotions freely, we all know they can be jealous, spiteful, vengeful, or master manipulators. So, guaranteeing emotional expression doesn't guarantee peace or happiness in the world. Also, people don't go to war just because men feel "manly" or are pumped up on testosterone; it's more about the fundamental inability to accept different opinions or lifestyles. It's easier to judge others and try to grab more power for yourself.
By the way, you're being pretty ridiculous with that example of someone losing loved ones in a short time. Mourning is a personal process—it isn't universal. Everyone goes through it differently, so him being that way doesn't make him a bad person, and you shouldn't be judging him. That's just... not very human of you.
And just to be clear, growing up, I was never into sports, aggression, or acting cold. I've been a pacifist since I can remember—someone who hates weapons and conflict and just tries to understand people's differences. Even so, I don't agree with you (and yes, I watched the documentary twice) no matter how much you want to put me in a specific little box. Nor do I think tears are the only way to show humanity, which I've explained before... because sometimes, when things go wrong, you just have to roll up your sleeves, get to work, give it your all, and grit your teeth. Crying and whining won't solve anything. The movie is garbage because it tries to use empathy to push the idea that masculinity is a bad trait and that men and women should always express every emotion without any masks—which is just a total illusion and a utopia. It's never happened, and it never will...

It feels like you’ve just sat yourself down right on top of a whole bag of whatever ideology is currently clouding your judgment. It’s funny, really—often those who claim to know the opponent's ideological vocabulary inside and out end up slipping right back into that very same camp themselves. Even when they think they're opposing it. We see it everywhere, don't we? One day it's radical feminists, the next it's the pro-life crowd, then the pro-choice side... it all bleeds together.

Anyway, what actually BUGS me (😉), if I'm being honest, is the hypocrisy. You won't apply your own critical method to yourself. I find nothing in your argument particularly convincing. First, you try to convince me that the entire world is just one giant battlefield—from market competition and sports to sex and the economy. You insist this is the reality (EVEN IF IT'S WRONG), and imply that if I don't agree, I'm somehow obligated to go out and buy into it?

Then, on the flip side, you pivot from that "realism" almost instantly into some utopian vision of tomorrow, where people aren't just brainwashed, feminized shells shaped by unrealistic media outlets (😁) that manufacture a version of the world that suits your whims. (EVEN IF IT'S WRONG, suddenly you're ready to get involved). 😁

What does this hypocritical approach reveal to me? Well, first, it shows how deeply we are all subject to ideologies, down to our very core. Second, it suggests you lack the actual arguments to defend your "might makes right" masculine worldview—so instead, you resort to these emotional pleas. And third, given everything said, trying to mold men and women into ideal warriors for a specific social system isn't just irrational; it's neither humane nor fair.

I'd like to believe you aren't doing this intentionally or as part of some grand plan, which is why I'm pointing it out.

I suspect the carica, perhaps unintentionally, isolated the issue regarding how boys are raised—specifically the development of empathy (if I’ve grasped the point correctly). If memory serves, most of the women on this forum focused on that aspect. I’d argue that by attempting to critique it, we are actually just reproducing those old-fashioned gender roles all over again. But then, I suppose that's the flaw in any system built from the ground up; you can't easily escape its roots.

Why is it that women find the greatest struggle within a man's emotional landscape, or even his capacity for empathy? It’s likely because the carica isn't a man, and empathy is that specific bridge that allows her to engage with what she perceives as a well-adjusted male partner. Consequently, we seem to be losing sight of the truly vital part here: the idea of a single man (or woman, for that matter) acting as an individual who should be able to achieve self-actualization THROUGH society, rather than merely conforming to social templates. Once again, we see a collision of ideological spirits—rather emotional, really—trying to reshape reality according to their own quasi-superior principles.

It simply isn't possible to raise a young man or a young woman to embody courage, wisdom, justice, strength, or nobility... Those are abstract concepts. We adapt ourselves to them, especially when we're young, and certainly within this American system, striving to be stronger, braver, more powerful, more successful... And we pursue this by cultivating fitter, more attractive bodies and faster wits (comparatives) that will eventually serve our need to acquire money (to use the term mentioned earlier). 😁

Women are slowly, but surely, moving toward that competitive starting line where they feel they must suppress everything human about themselves just to uphold a market-driven standard.

rowdypilot19 said:I don't think capitalism was actually the issue from back in the 1930s until maybe somewhere around 1975 or 1985—that’s when things just went off the rails because everyone stopped regulating everything.

I mean, any system needs some kind of guardrails, right? You can't just have investment banks out there being allowed to leverage themselves at a 33:1 ratio... I guess they just end up creating massive bubbles wherever they go.

There was this one documentary that explained it all really well, actually. It also talked about how much of a complete joke those credit rating agencies are.

But then again, looking at the big picture, neither capitalism nor communism or even socialism are really long-term solutions on their own, mostly because of just... well, human nature, I suppose. Most parts of capitalism are actually pretty good, but those few bad parts? They just ruin everything else.

And honestly, no system is ever going to be able to fix the oldest problems in human relationships—you know, stuff like stealing, lying, and corruption.

My take is that we're probably never going to solve those issues anyway, but I guess it doesn't even matter, since nothing is ever going to be perfect.

Well, that whole bolded part... honestly, you could only pull that off if you were sitting on a massive amount of private property. We're talking a huge amount of private ownership. 😁

Benjamin Johnson7 said:While his premise might hold some weight, I find it rather debatable; as our friend above pointed out, top-tier education and medical care often seem reserved for a select few. Furthermore, that little jab about the iPhone feels like it perfectly encapsulates the darkest side of capitalism—that relentless, unyielding hunger for profit. After all, "Designed in California, Made in China"—and we all know which political system governs that manufacturing hub, don't we?☕

The worst part? Well, that's really the only thing capitalism aims for. It's the sole logic behind it all: increasing capital.

Timothy Robinson78 said:If you don't want to take my word for it, just look at the data available online; it all supports my point. Human civilization has never seen such rapid progress as it has during the era of capitalism. Countries under a capitalist system consistently outperform socialist ones, offering higher standards of living, more robust human rights, better social safety nets, higher education rates, and superior healthcare systems.

Maybe give those facts some thought before you continue criticizing capitalism using your iPhone. 😁

That bolded part is subjective, though. A higher number of highly educated people? Well, obviously, since capitalism essentially invented new tiers of what qualifies as "highly educated." It quite literally manufactured entire university systems just to chase a profit margin. And a better healthcare system? For whom, exactly? Only for those who can afford it.

As for that iPhone argument... it misses the mark entirely and suggests a pretty basic misunderstanding of how capitalism actually works. An iPhone isn't inherently tied to capitalism through any direct cause-and-effect relationship. Whether technology itself has reshaped the world—for better or worse—is a completely different conversation.

Lawrence Bailey77 said:What has always stuck with me is the notion that the good is inherently good in its own right without needing any extra layers of calculation, valuation, or external assessment

Similarly, the problem of evil as a philosophical "question"—and please forgive me, as I consider myself a mere amateur when it comes to philosophy—objectively precludes any generalization of good or evil. It seems to reduce everything down to personal experience, or rather, one's individual perspective on how various phenomena or relationships exist within the world we inhabit.

Personally, when looking at nature—specifically regarding natural relationships and laws—I find a certain "logic of survival." I view the biological process itself as a form of good, along with the ways in which that life can be actively influenced to become more comfortable.😉

Human constructs, in my estimation, are heavily influenced by local cultures and the attempt to satisfy infantile needs. Consequently, they are riddled with absurdity and insecurity, which leads to numerous societal "losses" throughout the course of life... any kind of morality, regardless of its form, often costs a person their very existence, and don't even get me started on dogmas.🤮

Yeah, this definitely isn't a topic for psychology.

Lawrence Bailey77, how do you personally experience these questions? Is there a need to be meticulous here? And if so, what kind of need are we actually talking about?

And then there's the phrase, "How do the untainted fare?" What does "faring" actually mean in this context—through what, and under what conditions? And who, exactly, are these "untainted" people?

Timothy Robinson78 said:Capitalism is the fairest system we have. 👍

So what, would you just shove Paralympians in the same lane as the able-bodied Olympians? 😁
Or maybe we should just scrap the Paralympics altogether for the sake of "fairness"?

Timothy Robinson78 said:🤦

"Successful socialism" is an oxymoron.

Perhaps. But then again, I suppose "fair capitalism" is an oxymoron too.

darkbadger46 said:History shows us that a functional version of socialism can actually work—just look at how it was successfully implemented back in the USA before its creators eventually phased it out. On the flip side, you have highly effective capitalism, much like what we see in Denmark, where they’ve managed to maintain incredibly high employment rates. Ultimately, whether any system succeeds or fails boils down to one thing: the quality of the dialogue between politicians and the public, coupled with the direction set by the world's sole superpower. If the communication breaks down, the results are bound to be just as messy.

Not quite. That feels more like a quasi-justification for capitalism. For every Denmark out there, you’re bound to find a whole host of other countries struggling just to stay afloat. 🙂

Capitalism can't really function merely as an internal political framework; it operates as a geopolitical force.

Michelle Davis15 said:No, honestly, it's just the law of the jungle, and it's been ruling the world since day one. The real issue is how we’re raised; we’re taught from childhood that people are inherently good and honest, and that being virtuous is the only way to be. But by the time someone raised that way finally realizes how the world actually works, they've usually spent years getting stepped on, losing countless opportunities to actually compete on a level playing field.

The problem is that most of us just can't stomach the brutal reality, so we lie to ourselves to our own detriment. The Church played a massive role in this, constantly hammering away at our sense of guilt.

I don't think people are bad by nature. If anything, I think we're rational beings who can tell right from wrong. And I agree with your point, though with a slight nuance. We aren't talking about one "well-raised" individual. It's more that an "unrefined" individual acts like a rotten apple in a barrel of good ones, and eventually, everything else starts to rot too.

Anyway, I suppose one day people will finally realize that no matter how strong a single person might be, they'll never be stronger than ten working together.

If you’ve gone out somewhere and gathered so many apples that there isn't a single one left for me, and then you decide to let me watch them for you—offering me maybe a quarter of an apple, or whatever amount you deem reasonable—how else am I supposed to describe that besides unfettered capitalism? 😁

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:What does it actually mean to be a "corrupt" person?
What kind of criteria are we even using here to define corruption?
If everyone is just defining "badness" based on their own personal baggage and how they felt during a specific interaction, then there’s zero objectivity to it all...
It isn't all black and white. You can't just sort people into neat little boxes like that. Everyone carries a whole lifetime of history underneath the surface.

Being corrupt isn't just something defined by individual experience. It isn't some vague psychological label you just toss around.

Besides, regardless of what anyone thinks, objectivity actually carries weight. Something is objectively true whether one person recognizes it or absolutely no one does. Objectivity isn't about persuasion; it's about reality. 🙂

Carl Rivera43 said:I can't help but feel like so much of life is just... predictable. It feels like everything is stuck in this repetitive, cliché loop.

Take the NFL season, for example. You already know exactly how the games are going to play out, you know exactly what the commentators are going to drone on about, and it’s the same with almost every other news cycle. Honestly, even those rare moments of "spontaneous" humor feel totally forced—like they were scripted just to make us laugh.{It all feels so staged, doesn't it?}

Beyond the media influence, what else feels way too predictable to you guys? And why do you think it's so hard to break out of these patterns sometimes?

Does being predictable just kill creativity entirely?

What really gets to me, though—the thing that’s truly disappointing—is how predictable people are. There’s always talk about those rare individuals who aren't, but I haven't run into one yet. Sure, physical laws make the material world predictable, which makes sense. But humans? It seems like social, biological, and psychological conditioning keeps everyone trapped in these rigid little boxes. They just can't seem to look up from the ground. It's a bit pathetic, really.😁