5 posts shown.
I'm 34 years old and living in Washington, D.C. Personally, I can't stand the idea of talking about people like they're just commodities—using phrases like "offering this" or "looking for that." We aren't running a grocery store here; if we treated people that way, it would basically be human trafficking. Besides, based on the basic values of a civilized society, that’s generally considered wrong. Or am I missing something?
You could probably call me a hypocrite for even posting this here. And honestly, fair point. There is something a bit contradictory and, frankly, slightly schizophrenic about writing this out on a forum. But then again, aren't we all living in a pretty schizophrenic society? I guess we've just kind of gotten used to it.
That being said, if anyone still wants to reach out despite my rambling, you're more than welcome. I'd prefer to hear from women, if I'm being honest.
Casey Bennett said:Would you prefer Hellboy? Or maybe just Hell boy or Hell Boi without any numbers at the end?
Hell Boi without the numbers works for me.
Sounds good, just let Nica know.
Is it possible to change my username to Hell Boi31?
Brian Walker16 said:That whole "logic" thing? It was exposed a long time ago.
The pseudo-spiritual crowd has gone ahead and cooked up their own set of fake axioms:
Truth and morality? Honestly, I don't think those things even exist. They’re just convenient fictions we made up—purely relative, really. Reality itself is just one big contradiction, and I'm starting to think you can't actually wrap your head around it using logic alone. Maybe reason isn't all it's cracked up to be.
These are just the axioms of destruction—pure solipsism—and they’ll never actually lead anyone toward wisdom, freedom, or genuine goodness. Instead, they just spiral you down into ignorance, confusion, and total subjugation, which I guess is basically what our current era of global tyranny looks like. They act as the direct antithesis to our evolution as a species, to the Trivium, and to the original law. At the same time, though, these axioms are incredibly seductive to the ego—they offer this fake sense of freedom where you get to "create your own reality," mostly just so you can dodge any actual responsibility.
Truth exists regardless of how people choose to spin it. It’s just one thing—singular and unchanging—so it doesn't really bow down to anyone's subjective interpretation. I guess we're just circling the drain here because people either don't get it or they simply don't know.
The Trivium is basically just a framework for hunting down the truth through disciplined thinking. When we talk about "truth," we’re really talking about how reality actually lines up with reason. I guess you could break it down into three distinct angles—which, predictably, tie back to the three parts of the Trivium itself: first, by defining exactly what exists or what actually happened in the real world; second, by digging into why things turned out the way they did; and finally, by figuring out the mechanics of how things exist in their current state. It’s all about peeling back the layers, I suppose.
What exactly is the objective reality behind our sensory perception? It’s basically how we align what we see and feel with the concepts we hold in our minds. Then you have "why" and "how"—those were discovered for a reason, I suppose. They allow us to actually parse reality through some kind of proper mental analysis—you know, using logic, explanations, and deductions. If you do that right, it can lead you to truths and insights that go way beyond just what our eyes and ears can pick up. In short: Truth is found through the Trivium—1. What, 2. Why, and 3. How.
Some people just don't have the drive to actually uncover who they are—their true, original selves, I mean. They lack that fundamental desire to build a standard for themselves, something to help them tell what’s actually real from what’s just an illusion. So, I guess they just stay stuck—lost in their own ignorance, if you can even call it that.
Wait, are you actually trying to contradict me here?
Richard Howard2 said:adriatic said:😕
Of course we have it: THAT IS LIFE.
Our civilization is suicidal—it’s fundamentally anti-life.
Life in general, and human life specifically—that is the only framework I recognize. Everything else is secondary. 😉
That is true. But it also means you aren't quite right. Look, despite all the anti-life horrors human civilization has churned out, they haven't actually managed to destroy life yet. Sure, there's a possibility they could, and it's a speculation that seems disturbingly achievable if you ask me, but when you look at the mirror of history—even during those most uncomfortable moments where humanity was staring down the barrel of extinction—everything always turned out okay.
I’ve already made my point: human civilization, much like our planet, functions as an organism with its own built-in defense mechanisms. Any extreme excess will inevitably trigger a counter-effect. Take globalization, for instance—the negative side of it. The more aggressive it becomes, the stronger the anti-globalization movements will grow, eventually acting to push back against it as needed.
If we follow your logic, how can you claim globalization has a dark side without providing a single reference? You're basically just assuming there's only one way to look at it.☕