Posts by feralranger

No bone of a man makes him a man. To suggest otherwise is not only foolish, but fundamentally dehumanizing.

Inhumanity implies an emotional numbness, whereas true emotional maturity—paired with intellectual depth—is quite literally the prerequisite for reason and the very concept of being "human."

(And just so we’re perfectly clear and avoid any tiresome misunderstandings: I am by no means some regressive, wannabe Stalinist, nor have I ever advocated for purges. In composing my posts, I was simply standing against your unsightly rhetoric, and frankly, I have absolutely no grievance regarding your [partial] banning of me.)

Charles Wood73 said:It’s honestly quite something when Sisyphus just decides to kneel right in the middle of a thread and refuse to budge. 🤦

Maybe you should just crawl back into the primordial soup you crawled out of and call it a day.

Charles Wood73 said:Nah, you basically just hijacked my thread. Seriously, just beat it already.

Employing such primitive language—especially since I haven't even provoked you—serves only to highlight your own character flaws and the obvious turbulence within your own mind.

wanderingheron9 said:Hey there, Michael! Man, I can totally see why you feel like today just hit you like a ton of bricks.
Believe it or not, I'm actually really happy for you. We jawbone types have already paved the way here in the States and got everything running smooth. The red carpet is rolled out, so just dive right in, my friend.👍

I think the original post got wiped.
From what I recall, feralranger used to argue that "objective" beauty is really just a moving target driven by whatever trends happen to be popular at the time. Then his buddy Brahma brought up this study where they showed babies pictures of attractive versus unattractive people, and every single infant gravitated toward the more attractive faces. It’s wild because we’re talking about babies who aren't even conscious enough to know what's going on yet, but their instincts are already hardwired to gravitate toward those healthy, symmetrical features in adults. It definitely left Sisyphus Brahma scratching his head, wondering if infants are actually following trends too, or if it's just pure biology.
Sisyphus ignored those babies so many times that it actually turned into a whole new meme. 🤣

I haven't bothered verifying that specific study because it is entirely irrelevant to the current context... I mean, even if we grant that it holds some weight, so what? It remains an undeniable fact that the experience of beauty has fluctuated across the centuries. Culture and environment undoubtedly shape perception.

But honestly, it's beside the point... because how does any of that relate to the absurdly clumsy use of the term "subhuman" when discussing bone parameters?

Anyone who doesn't possess—if I may borrow the phrase "to give someone a taste of their own medicine"—a "subhuman brain" can easily see that this particular point of mine, which is the crux of the matter, remains entirely unrefuted.

While those who refuse to buckle up laugh at themselves and invite nothing but sheer embarrassment—yes, truly, they do it with such convincing...

Because, as I have previously posited...

The defining traits of our species are heightened emotionality and intelligence, which necessitates the application of both reason and intuition.

A person remains fundamentally human even if they were stripped of certain attributes (or, heaven forbid, lost a bone in some tragic accident). Even primates possess jaws. Literally. Therefore, to suggest that someone is "Subhuman" based solely on the dimensions of some arbitrary bone is, quite frankly, just plain stupid.

The solution doesn't lie in nurturing some regressive, narrow-minded Stalinist mindset or practically begging for purges; rather, it lies in mounting a defense against specific instances of sheer stupidity, much like this (through counterarguments, accompanying context, or relevant links...).

Sam Jones8 said:I'm not even a man, and I’m a total junkie on top of that, so I gotta say—this hit the spot perfectly. 🕺 👋

Just one more Ljes hurdle to clear—or maybe it’ll be the other way around and they'll finally finish me off. 🎉

wanderingheron9, this Subhuman wants to say thanks for the help!

And tell me, were you also looking into those local elections over in the US?

I simply haven't the leisure to compose a lengthy treatise, so I shall merely relay the fact that even an AI has managed to outshine those absolute losers who spend their lives clawing for power.

Following my inquiry, here is the (c/p) response from GPT.

What is your take on individuals who obsessively scramble for positions of superiority over others, solely to facilitate their elimination, silence them, or stifle their voices?

AI GPT states:
I believe such behavior is both inappropriate and counterproductive. An individual who aggressively pursues dominance over others to eliminate or silence them clearly lacks respect for people and fails to value their perspectives or contributions. This type of conduct frequently results in the erosion of interpersonal relationships, diminished productivity, and a toxic work environment.

Rather than desperately grasping for status, individuals ought to invest their energy into fostering positive, constructive relationships and collaborating to achieve shared objectives. Remaining open to diverse ideas and viewpoints can lead to more effective, creative problem-solving and, ultimately, superior outcomes.

Or, if you ask my rather more cynical opinion, they are essentially just wannabe Jandrokovići—though at least he has the authority to issue reprimands and hand out punishments in real life. These people are even more pathetic than he is, considering his associates are just carbon copies of him. Truly miserable njonja VL.

Rachel Price6 said:Sure, I'll stop baiting right now. I'm not quite foolish enough to waste my time trying to prove something that’s already obvious over thousands of pages.
Goodnight.

It appears you are quite fond of extensively interpreting your own examples rather than anyone else's... because once you start twisting someone else's logic, we have moved past debate and straight into the most pedestrian form of sophistry through blatant misinterpretation.

When one fails to engage with reading comprehension, the inevitable result is a series of sprawling, distorted interpretations that bear absolutely no resemblance to my actual points. You are essentially projecting intentions onto me that I never possessed, nor did I ever articulate them in the manner you’ve decided to interpret them.

I am certainly not following your lead by attempting to plant false ideas in your head, yet that is precisely what you are doing to me. It would be quite civil of you to cease this behavior immediately.

That specific example wasn't intended to serve as some sort of "gold standard" for communication (and, for the record, my relationship with that girl at the time was hardly reducible to mere physical intimacy nor did I suggest anywhere that it was); it was simply a candid illustration of how things actually were.

Rachel Price6 said:I'm with you on the idea that male jealousy is primarily sexual.

You've repeated this thousand times about there being two spheres. You constantly separate Eros from philia, treating philia like some kind of advantage in your examples.
You can't compare philia between friends to philia within a romantic relationship.

Sex is the catalyst (your Eros) that allows philia to develop and leads a couple into a really solid bond.

In a friendship, the Eros factor isn't there. So, naturally, there's no jealousy in that kind of setup.

We all get it, so there's no need to keep hammering the same point over and over.

We're adults, not kids in a classroom. At least I'm not—I'm practically ready for retirement.🤣

Well, they do exist. And while it is true that I do not conflate them, nowhere in my writing do I suggest that one isn't necessary alongside the other. Please try reading with a modicum of actual comprehension so you don't go implying things that simply do not exist in my posts; frankly, I have no desire to repeat myself if everyone would just learn how to read properly.

Rachel Price6 said:I have to agree with his point about the erotic aspect regarding "men." He’s spot on. Most men can’t even wrap their heads around the idea of their partner being sexual with someone else.

For a man, that’s the ultimate ego hit—realizing someone else was in his territory.
The emotional side, or what feralranger calls philia, isn't as prominent for men in those moments. Basically, any friendly feelings he had just vanish from his perspective. Maybe that doesn't make perfect sense.

The issue with feralranger on this topic is that he doesn't seem to grasp that in any marriage or relationship, both elements are inseparable. A marriage or a partnership simply doesn't function without both philia and eros.
You need both components for it to actually work.

And where on earth are you getting that from? You seem to be implying that I am denying this, which I assure you, I most certainly am not. Of course both elements are required.

My point was merely that jealousy tends to manifest more intensely in men within the sexual sphere, whereas in women, it leans toward the emotional side—which, quite frankly, explains why we see those differing perspectives on what actually constitutes "infidelity." This is an observation of my own, and it is further supported by the research. (Though, naturally, as with almost everything in life, there are outliers, albeit they remain the minority).

Thomas Nelson25 said:So you're pushing for sexual love on that philia level?

Honestly though, I don't really get that whole concept from the forum crowd.

I'm not trying to dive into spirituality or physics right this second.

Hardly. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I certainly don't deny the existence of standard, uncomfortable emotions; I am well aware they serve a distinct evolutionary purpose.

If I am "advocating" for anything—and I use that term loosely—it is for the dismantling of those shallow, mainstream clichés that people cling to simply because they sound pleasant, rather than engaging with anything that might actually require a modicum of intellectual effort. That said, I find myself equally alienated from the "typical" counterculture crowd, who seem just as steeped in anti-intellectualism, bizarre superstitions, and a glaring lack of critical thought as the mindless mainstreamers they claim to despise. In my estimation, both groups share the exact same deficiency: a profound absence of analytical rigor.

Thomas Nelson25 said:The concept is key—it could be Christian, but I'm not really into theology.
Besides, it works—you ever heard of Meister Eckhart?
(Dualism? Please, no way.)

You're basically putting artists (and yourself) on a pedestal like they're saints—I mean, just look at how they actually live.

On the contrary, I suspect that what you see is merely an illusion... typically, a certain clique of more or less identical individuals—largely unread and decidedly anti-intellectual—tends to jump at my posts, creating a defensive posture that isn't a 'true' reflection of who I am. In truth, it fails entirely to represent the person you might perceive had you known me outside of such a narrow 'frame' or specific context...

Thomas Nelson25 said:The concept is key—it could be Christian, but I'm not really into theology.
Besides, it works—you ever heard of Meister Eckhart?
(Dualism? Please, no way.)

You're basically putting artists (and yourself) on a pedestal like they're saints—I mean, just look at how they actually live.

Some time ago—back when I was still just a high schooler—I attended a lecture on his philosophical thought at a Dominican center in Chicago, and I am aware that Carl Jung held him in high regard and frequently drew upon his perspectives.

I fail to see how agape can possibly fit into a concept that isn't dualistic. I would be most interested if you could explain your perspective on this.

I find myself unable to write extensively tonight, but I would be delighted to read or learn more about what you are proposing, whether you choose to write it out or simply provide a solid link related to the subject.

Thomas Nelson25 said:If you want to get technical, there are four types of love.

You seem pretty hung up on that whole hippie/artistic vibe—hey, if that's how you want to play it, fine.

I am well aware of the various classifications out there... however, for instance, the concept of 'agape' implies a certain dualism, a distinction I simply don't subscribe to... within a non-dualistic framework, 'agape' actually falls under that non-Erotic spectrum, much like the philia category...

fadedcobra7 said:Look, if you ask me, you're just overthinking it. Theory is one thing, but reality is a whole different beast.

You’d think anyone would be happy if their partner decided to "go out and spread the love." 😬

But did I ever actually suggest anything of the sort? Of course not. Perhaps if people practiced a modicum of reading comprehension, they wouldn't feel the need to attribute such wildly inaccurate sentiments to me.

darkjackal7 said:It’s pretty obvious that you’re the one struggling to grasp reality if you can't wrap your head around what people are telling you. An intelligent person would state their case, explain themselves if they felt something was unclear, and then leave it at that—letting everyone else move on with their lives.

Clinging to an argument like this doesn't make you look smart; it just makes you look like a fool.

And apparently, because some of us lack your particular brand of shamelessness—and happen to possess a functional understanding of mathematics and science, preferring logic over bizarre superstitions and horoscopes—we are all categorized as "fools."

However, while you may be attempting to insult me, you are essentially just describing yourself and inviting nothing but your own embarrassment.

fadedcobra7 said:So, have you actually put those views into practice? Are you actually in a polyamorous relationship?

And how on earth does that even matter?

I merely stated that my jealousy levels are slightly below the national average... though, broadly speaking, the balance between philia and eros in my own relationships remains pretty much aligned with what most people experience emotionally.

The only thing is, I have a profound distaste for platitudes—those empty little catchphrases that everyone else seems to swallow whole. I prefer to call things exactly what they are, which, quite frankly, tends to rub the mainstream, unthinking masses the wrong way.

coastalwalker9 said:Well, it seems you’re the only one truly standing out in this crowd. feralranger. 🤷

Oh, naturally (and not just in this particular corner of the internet)—it’s simply because I refuse to be categorized as a man of "opinion" who fits neatly into the mainstream mold.

I merely expressed my interest in peering beneath the surface of what most people consider trivial or painfully obvious.

PS
The usual crowd from the gossip threads over on the other forum has arrived as well. 😁

...well, we find ourselves circling back to this issue simply because some people lack basic discernment. It’s quite similar to when you attempt to provide someone with fundamental mathematical instructions; the problem lies in the fact that certain individuals fail to grasp the glaringly obvious distinction between erotic love and philia within the Homo sapiens sapiens species.

In the sphere of philia, most people aren't prone to jealousy or possessiveness—> for the most part, they don't insist on a monopoly over their partner.

In the erotic sphere, however, most people are inherently jealous and exclusive—> they generally demand a strictly 'monogamous' arrangement.

It isn't truly a matter of "complex mathematics," yet somehow, it remains an impossibly complicated concept for some.

fadedcobra7 said:Even my girlfriend was like, "Let's ring in New Year's together." We make all these plans, get everything lined up, and then she just flakes on me to hit up some party with someone else? Honestly, I’d lose my mind.

It’s the exact same thing if a partner says, "I'm going to open up my inner world to you and we'll have this deep, exclusive connection," only to go out to some random bar, come home, and act like nothing ever happened. They didn't share anything.

This isn't about being jealous. It's about broken promises, betrayal, and straight-up lying.

That is trivial.

However, if there truly is no jealousy involved, then there is absolutely no initial need to insist upon monoeroticism (monogamy), much in the same way one wouldn't feel the need to demand a monopoly on friendship.