Posts by Peter Phillips32

Anonymous said:The only thing a human brain can truly master is reality itself, because once someone realizes the truth, they have this innate ability to shatter any illusion they previously clung to.
Does intelligence have a built-in flaw—that it’s always tethered to a specific goal?
And is it impossible for anyone to maintain a negative self-image over the long haul, simply because it would lead to a total psychological breakdown?
Are these two concepts intrinsically linked within the human psyche?
Do you see any logical fallacies in that reasoning?

Look, there are two big mistakes here.
Who actually keeps the controllers in check?
Don't you get that control is basically just a fancy word for subordination? Control is straight-up abuse.

You’ve gotta realize that this isn't some kind of personal assault, so there's zero need to get all defensive about it. Because let's be real—once you start defending yourself, you inevitably pivot into an attack. And we all know that attacking is usually the best way to defend. You just do whatever it takes.

I mean, you really have to move past this whole ego trip where you think "I" am defined by my own thoughts, thinking I don't even need to protect myself...

It all just boils down to the specifics of the situation—what actually caused the mess and how to fix it.
The one thing you can say for sure is that a person has to stumble upon the answer themselves. Telling someone what to do doesn't actually do anything. There's no such thing as an "instant epiphany" regarding your own mistakes—that's just one of those delusions people fall into when they're being overly spiritual or idealistic.
Some people put in the work, some need a little nudge when they hit a wall, and then there are the ones who just won't try at all.

As for the solution... it's different for everyone. There's no one-size-fits-all fix.

Fine by me, actually go ahead and lock this thread. There’s zero point in keeping it open when there isn't even an actual conversation happening here.
What's the point of having moderators who just deliver monologues anyway? :rhetorical question, since I'm clearly asking for the lock:

Also, I’ve got a suggestion for whoever's running the show around here—if you're actually listening. Can we maybe establish a standard procedure? Instead of having one person act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the sole member of the appeals board all at once, could we maybe bring in at least one other person to the review board? Someone impartial, obviously.
It honestly feels like because only one side showed up to weigh in, everyone else is either feeling the same way or they just haven't bothered to get involved. And frankly, silence doesn't mean much on a platform that's supposed to be a forum.

Look, you’re still dodging the question about why you’ve got such insanely rigid lines drawn between on-topic and off-topic, and why you won't just let a conversation actually breathe. These threads are supposed to be discussions, not just some dry, mindless lists of facts. Honestly, from where I'm sitting, you aren't acting like a moderator; you're acting like a dictator. Since I can't stand being suffocated like this in a chat, I'll probably just stick to the subforums where people are actually allowed to talk, because constant, pointless listing without any actual critique just kills the whole vibe.

If I’m reading this right—and maybe my brain just works differently because I didn't immediately click with what the OP was getting at—you want those few posts to just 'vanish' so we can pretend there isn't any disagreement about what the 'unified' direction should be. Like, if we don't delete the dissent, we haven't achieved total consensus, right?
I mean, seriously, since when is anything that isn't an explicit request from the author considered off-topic? Even if the OP doesn't quite know what they're looking for or how to frame the question, how is it wrong for a new line of reasoning to emerge inductively from within the same thread? Isn't the whole point of a discussion to gain insight, even if the original topic ends up being just a jumping-off point due to the usual way conversations drift?

And regarding that comparison to alcohol... I've asked once and I'll ask again—how is it okay to have a totally legitimate post promoting booze, but suddenly a post celebrating something non-material becomes the problem?
If you think that first post was fine, then why on earth didn't you just leave it alone?

So, go ahead and explain to me how this is even on-topic, because where exactly in your reply did you actually suggest what she should buy? You could have just said "don't buy her anything" and called it a day.

Look, I said don't buy anything, and then I had to explain my reasoning behind that stance. I mean, if a girl is asking for gift ideas, she’s inherently looking for the rationale behind why someone thinks a specific item fits the occasion. If she just wanted a mindless list, she could've just Googled a list herself, which honestly doesn't even accomplish much.

As someone who already holds one degree. Nothing.

Honestly, if I had just stopped there, I would've looked pathetic. Worse, it would've come off as a total provocation or just some really bad attempt at humor. That's why I took the route of actually laying out my thought process.

The founder wasn't asking for your opinion on the concept of gifting; she specifically asked for suggestions on what to purchase.

Actually, if she's asking for my suggestion on a purchase, I'm operating under the assumption that she also cares about the *why*—why that specific thing makes sense for this particular situation. Since a suggestion is fundamentally an opinion, she's essentially asking for my take.

From her first post, it was pretty obvious the girl didn't want to think for herself; she just wanted to follow the standard consumerist tradition. So, I'm playing along, and in the second half of my second post, I even threw in some "alternatives" for what she could do:
-just ask the person directly what they want,
-if the person loves surprises, then tell them you have no clue what to get because you don't do gifts.
See, even in that second post, it's pretty clear that everything I'm saying stays strictly on-topic.

So, I really don't get how this can be considered off-topic or somehow "invalid."

Especially when you compare my approach—which is different and therefore requires an explanation—to that typical "buy them booze" approach that everyone considers "normal" and never bothers to justify... how can my posts be labeled as off-topic or illegitimate? This is exactly why I titled this thread "Selective."

I’ve got another thing on my mind here: what’s actually the difference between suggesting a non-material way to evaluate a specific situation—which is basically what my post was about—versus suggesting we just settle the whole thing with a round of drinks (like that other post in this thread)?
And if there's a distinction, why on earth was mine flagged as off-topic?

If that wasn't off-topic, then what the hell counts as off-topic?

And how can something be considered off-topic when it's literally addressing the subject at hand? Was I really expected to just spit out a few sterile, cookie-cutter sentences that perfectly mirror the prompt without any actual substance?

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of answers I get for these.

Whoever decided to go ahead and wipe my posts from this thread... look, if you're gonna play judge and jury on what counts as off-topic—which, let's be real, I totally disagree with here—then at least have the guts to be consistent and scrub all the other nonsense too, instead of just being weirdly selective about it.

I honestly don't even know which mod nuked my stuff, so I figured I’d just lay it all out right here.
Can we maybe get a straight answer for once on what actually qualifies as off-topic? Because right now, the rules feel incredibly murky.

Alex Patel96 said:I’m also out here waiting for the right one.😍 But they aren't showing up.😁

Honestly, I don't think it has anything to do with you. People like that are just chasing something that doesn't exist. I've been there myself—I thought I finally found the one, only to realize there was always some catch. Some people are just wired to be never satisfied, constantly hunting for something... but there is no such thing as "the perfect person"!

If there's any single lesson we can pull from those old-school classic love stories, it's that we basically trick ourselves into believing we fall in love entirely by our own volition. All those tales we grew up on, passed down through generations, they bake these massive expectations into our heads for every single stage of a relationship.
— Robert J. Sternberg, Cupid's Arrow
(a quote used in the book by Mary-Lou Galician - Love and romance in the mass media - analysis & criticism of unrealistic portrayals & their influence - Analysis & Criticism of Unrealistic Portrayals & Their Influence)

Honestly, there isn't a single movie out there that I don't go into expecting something absolutely massive.
Some of them hit that mark perfectly, while others just fall short of the ideal.

Donna Wood52 said:I’m not jealous. 🙂 It’s just—I honestly can’t wrap my head around why someone that stunning would even bother seeing a psychiatrist.

Peter Phillips32, are you actually offended that I have a thing for doctors? 😁
Because let’s be real—the men on this forum haven't exactly been welcoming ever since I admitted to my little fetish.

Well, look, maybe she's dealing with some deep-seated psychological stuff? Or maybe she's just out in the middle of the woods somewhere... either way, trying to draw conclusions based on these kinds of shallow details is just a guessing game, not actual "analysis."

Peter Phillips32, are you actually offended that I have a thing for doctors? 😁

Not in the slightest.
And hey, I won't feel bad if you eventually realize that little neck brace thing you're wearing isn't just for physical therapy.

because the guys on this forum haven't liked me since I admitted to my fetish.

It’s probably not about the fetish, it’s more about how annoying you are.
Annoying because you're boring.
Boring because... well, you know exactly why.

Donna Wood52 said:I’m struggling to find the right headline for this, but let me try to lay it out. I know this woman—maybe she’s 28, I don't know exactly—and look, she is stunning. I don't mean just "conventionally attractive," I mean truly, head-turning gorgeous. She has the kind of curves people dream about and a face straight off a Vogue cover. But—and this is the part where the story hits a wall—that is quite literally all she has. No boyfriend, let alone a husband; no college degree... basically, she lacks everything that modern American society tells a young person they "should" have to be considered successful. Yet, everywhere she goes, men are practically tripping over themselves to get her attention. I'm not sure if you see what I'm getting at here.

I met her during a group therapy session we were attending. It was one of those settings where everyone seems to be competing over their accomplishments—this guy was bragging about his career, that woman about her kids, another person about their grad school progress—and then there was her. When it was her turn to sit, she just let her thick hair down and crossed those long, beautiful legs. That was it. 😁

So, the question is: is someone like that actually happy? On one hand, looking that good has to count for something—men certainly notice—and I wouldn't call her stupid, either. She’s actually quite serious, and whenever we had these sessions, she’d offer some genuinely insightful advice. She isn't some vapid, self-absorbed airhead, despite appearances.

What I'm curious about is whether any of you have ever encountered someone like this—someone who possesses nothing to show for themselves except an incredible physical appearance?

Look, let's call it what it is: you're just jealous.

Tyler Myers5 said:🙄
Well, I suppose it goes without saying that these beauties actually have some substance behind those looks 🤷

From what I've seen, how many empty vessels do you actually encounter 🙂

none. It’s just the same old story with brainless Donna Wood52 running the show again.

I well, this thing is heading in a few different directions at once 😁
And where the hell is it all actually going?

Alright, finally hunted down a Bluetooth washing machine—or whatever you call these smart gadgets—so now I can actually get a post up. Honestly, it’s about damn time...
The shots are from, I think, September. One was snapped right after a bike ride, and the others were probably taken the following day.

images

I didn't include any leg shots because this camera makes everything look kind of blurry and washed out, plus I just couldn't be bothered to pose for back shots. But yeah, the development is looking pretty similar to my upper body.

The movie’s actually pretty decent, so I’m throwing a solid 6 or 7 out of 10 at it.
There are some fresh bits that make it worth sitting through—like that whole prison tunneling sequence, which was pretty wild, haha. But man, that ending... it felt so Hollywood. It totally kills the gritty vibe the movie was building, even if it works for the big studios who love their predictable little fantasies about how good always wins in such a flashy way.😛(Like that part at the end where Fox Corporation's guy walks out of prison, and the explosion doesn't even faze him, let alone making you worry about whether Gerard Butler is dead or not)

I honestly don't even know where to start with this whole Republic of Korea situation, because man, it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and realize how messy global politics can actually get when you stop looking at the headlines for five seconds. It’s like watching a high-stakes drama unfold on a loop, except instead of actors, you’ve got massive geopolitical powers playing chess with actual human lives, which is pretty heavy when you really think about it. You look at the tension there and it reminds me of how intense things can get in certain parts of the US when political divides start feeling less like a debate and more like a standoff, though obviously on a much more volatile scale. People love to jump in with their two cents without actually grasping the historical baggage involved, and frankly, I think most folks are just reacting to the noise rather than the actual substance of what's happening on the ground. It's exhausting, really, trying to keep up with the shifting alliances and the constant threat of things boiling over, especially when you feel like the big players are just moving pieces around for their own benefit while everyone else deals with the fallout. It’s a mess, a total mess, and honestly, I’m just sitting here wondering if anyone’s actually looking at the long-term consequences or if we’re all just waiting for the next inevitable explosion. kaže:
Man, these theories you're throwing around really remind me of that whole "humans are naturally bisexual" argument—you know, the one you totally shut down back in the day.

I mean, look, I honestly gave that theory some thought for a minute there—I actually went along with it at first—but then I started overthinking things, as I usually do, and realized how much of a mess the whole concept actually is. Once you really sit with it, you start seeing how someone can be both sexual and asexual at the same time depending on the headspace they're in, whether that’s something forced on them by circumstances or just a personal choice they've made. It’s all about where and how you decide to express that side of yourself, which is entirely up to the individual and can shift whenever the hell they want it to. So, honestly, this whole little outburst of yours? It's pretty much meaningless until you actually figure out where you stand.

Look, setting aside the whole biological requirement where you obviously need two sexes to actually make a new human being—and yeah, I know how biology works, don't get me started—I’m talking more about the psychological side of things here, you know? It's really more about that whole "mind over matter" concept, where the mental state and the headspace you're in play a much bigger role than just the physical mechanics of it all.

Look, if you’re trying to argue that it’s all just about how you’re raised or the people you hang out with, then you’ve got a massive hole in your logic, right? I mean, how on earth do you explain the fact that people come out as gay in these super intense, ultra-conservative pockets of middle America? We're talking about places where from the second you're born, they're drilling it into your head that being anything other than straight is absolutely disgusting and fundamentally wrong. If it were strictly about environmental influence, those kids would just blend right in, wouldn't they? But they don't. You can't just "teach" someone to change their core nature by shouting at them in a church basement or whatever, no matter how hard they try to enforce those rigid social norms.

I’ve been rambling on about how much your surroundings mess with you while you're growing up, mostly because when you're a kid, that environment is basically your entire universe—you don't even realize it's there, you just absorb it like a sponge until someone actually points out what's going on around you. It's like you're living in a bubble that you didn't even ask to be in. You can't really make a choice for yourself until you finally break free and develop some actual critical thinking skills, which is basically that mental toolkit that lets you tell the difference between what's actually real and the nonsense people try to feed you, and only then—once you've got that clarity—can you actually stand on your own two feet and make a decision that's truly yours.

When people ask me why I take the stance I do, my answer is pretty simple: "Why not?" Look, playing it safe and just nodding along with the crowd—that pure, unadulterated conformism—it doesn't actually move the needle on anything. It’s a trap. Most of the time, all that mindless agreement does is buy you a little bit of temporary peace while you wait for the next big idea to drop or for someone with an actual backbone to show up and tell everyone else they're being idiots. If you're just going along to get along, you aren't changing the world; you're just waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting for you.😁

Alex Patel96 said:Seriously?🍿 That philosophy reminds me of those old-school experts trying to force left-handed kids to write with their right hands.🙂

It's clear that this kind of primitive thinking just never goes away.☕

Look, I think you’ve got some serious mental blocks going on here, like there’s some kind of fog clouding your vision or something. Because if you actually read my posts, I never once mentioned forcing anyone to change, nor did I ever claim to know what's "good" for anyone else.
Besides, I don't see any harm in someone deciding on their own they want to work on becoming ambidextrous. Which, if I really have to spell it out for you, is basically the exact point I'm making.

Clearly, pure primitivism is never going to be wiped out.☕

It’s pretty obvious you’re just hiding behind empty platitudes.

Look, I keep bringing up liberalism and all those other buzzwords you guys love to cling to, but my whole point—the actual core of what I’m driving at here—is whether change is actually doable, you know? Like, if it's even practically possible. 🙂

I honestly don't have the energy to chew on this same crap all over again.

Sean Cruz said:I’ll admit, I’m not liberal at all, so I don't spend my time fantasizing about homosexual relationships. 😢

Something this deeply rooted is considered natural, leading us to these stereotypes—that we are inherently heterosexual, that God made us that way, and so on.

The thing is, that isn't some stereotype; it's a factual reality. I have no desire to debate this topic with you. I see that lonegardener has already replied, and it's clear you consider yourself to be on some "higher level" given how liberal your views are. 😉

Just like any other preference—whether it's symphonic music, fruit juice, TV shows, games, sports, or strawberries with whipped cream—sexual enjoyment can be changed. The degree of change depends on the ability of the person changing. That ability, for whatever it's worth, can be improved, primarily through practice.

What can I say? I haven't the slightest clue how sex can be "improved." In my view, sex is strictly for reproduction. Perhaps that's why I'm not on that "advanced level," since I don't fantasize about women. 😢

Similarly, why are women currently more attractive to both men and women? It's because they take better care of their appearance.

Women, no matter how beautiful, don't excite me; whereas men, regardless of how unattractive they may be, do (though not everyone—just the occasional rare case). What can I do? I am just an ordinary woman without those "progressive" views. 😢

God, the logical fallacies here are endless—everything from ad hominem attacks to playing the victim. It's not helping you, not in trying to prove a point and certainly not in your attempt at sarcasm.

I’m talking about the actual skill required to achieve something like that. You need a reason to even start, and since you clearly don't have one, you can't even begin to test whether my claims hold water.
It’s like thinking you can just pick up singing or painting overnight. (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way, since you're clearly backing out of this "discussion" you think we were actually having.)
p.s.
If you're wondering why I put "discussion" in quotes, it's because I don't see this as a real dialogue, given that I haven't seen a shred of psychological insight in any of your posts on this topic. (And just to be clear, if anyone tries to nitpick—I don't consider it true understanding unless there's actual agreement; otherwise, it's just knowing the vocabulary and being able to express it.)

lonegardener said:My heart is broken. 😬

In your rush to be philosophical, you've completely overlooked the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing biological species. It isn't "God" who designed us this way; it's evolution. That’s not some "stereotype," lol—it’s just biology.

Now, I agree that an orgasm can be experienced in countless different ways. However, that doesn't justify the specific "conclusions" you're throwing around here. Sure, if an angry dog felt the need, he might try anything from a cat to a rabbit to a tree stump or even a shin, but he’s still going to prefer a dog. Why? Did someone brainwash him with stereotypes? 😂

If you really believe in freedom of thought, you should take a page out of that dog's book. There's no reason to limit yourself strictly to Homo sapiens when there's such a vast world of fauna... and flora out there. 😬 Don't let your own prejudices narrow the scope of your orgasmic experiences...

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how people think they can just slide through life without ever facing the music, you know? It’s like everyone is just playing pretend, acting all innocent while they’re actually digging themselves into a hole, and honestly, it makes me want to scream sometimes because I see it happening everywhere. And don't even get me started on those folks who act like they've got it all figured out when they're really just stumbling blindly through the dark—it’s honestly kind of pathetic if you ask me (though I guess I'm one to talk, considering how much time I spend overthinking every single little thing until my brain feels like mush).

Look, I get it, an orgasm can go down in a million different ways—that’s just facts. But honestly, the "conclusions" you just dumped on me here? Total nonsense. It’s like if some angry dog gets loose; sure, he might snap at a cat, a rabbit, a chicken, or even a random tree stump if he's feeling particularly unhinged, but at the end of the day, he’s still gonna choose his own damn bone. Why? Is it because someone spent all day brainwashing him with stereotypes? I don't think so. People act like there's some set way things have to work, but that's just noise. 😂

Look, if you’re already out here comparing someone to a dog, then honestly, you’ve just done all my heavy lifting for me and proven my point. You're basically admitting that person is operating on a level where they've completely surrendered their own agency—just sitting there waiting for orders and following whatever "master" tells them to do without a second thought. It’s pure, mindless obedience.
I mean, seriously, that dog’s brain is just totally fried—it's like he's been completely brainwashed or something. You tell him "stay" and he freezes mid-step, then you say "sit" and he just drops right where he is like he's running on autopilot. It's wild.

Look, it’s pretty simple if you think about it—just tell someone they’re being an idiot once and they won't buy it, right? They'll just look at you like you've lost your mind. But you just keep at it, man. You tell them they're stupid a hundred times, and I swear on my life, by the hundred and first time, they’ll finally be the ones to say it themselves. It's like this weird, inevitable cycle where you eventually just wear down their defenses until they admit what everyone already knows. Just a little bit of persistence goes a long way when you're dealing with people who refuse to see reason.

Look, if you’re really going to sit there and preach about freedom of thought like it’s some holy crusade, then maybe you should take a page out of a dog's book. I mean, seriously, why are you being so narrow-minded? Why limit your entire worldview to just Homo sapiens when there is such an incredibly massive, diverse spectrum of fauna and flora out there just waiting to be considered? It's kind of ridiculous if you think about it. 😬 Don't you dare let your own damn prejudices narrow down the scope of what you can feel during an orgasm... seriously, just don't.

I could never see myself acting like a dog—honestly, if we're talking about sucking up to people, I’m certainly not going to be polishing anyone's boots or playing the loyal pet just because they might tighten the leash around my neck.
Look, if you actually bothered to sit down and read that book I mentioned, you’d realize it covers way more than just the obvious stuff—it even dives into examples involving pets. And honestly, you see those kinds of scenarios pop up in the news every once in a while too, though it's rare; usually, it's stories about folks living out in the middle of nowhere, like isolated farmers out in rural Nebraska or something, dealing with their livestock, maybe some sheep or whatever.

p.s.
Look, since you’re already wasting your time reading this anyway, you might as well stop being so damn picky and actually jump in. Stop playing it safe and get involved.