Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 10:36 am Would a man walk over hot coals for this lovely lady?






roxy tickle.jpg

Are you suggesting this person is undateable?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:00 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 12:08 pm Never trust someone who calls you 'friend' when you don't know from a bar of soap.

Trust is a tricky word. It’s true we cannot know anyone else. But we can know ourself, if we are totally honest. We may not always show parts of ourselves to others in fear of them rejecting us, but deep down, aren’t we all the same human presence, with all the same hidden baggage and maybe demons.


As a human presence, who wouldn’t say no to a cuddle or some loving affection and some positive vibes from others.
And also, every best friend or intimate lover you have ever known, once started out as a complete stranger. So being closed off to others in fear of totally distrusting them, is a self inflicted isolation, that you either enjoy, or repel. I would rather remain open to potential and possibilities because we’re all the same human presences, underneath all our egoic pretensions.

I wasn't 'talking' to you. Perhaps that wasn't clear. And I don't need one of your virtue-signalling lectures thanks just the same.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:31 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:00 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 12:08 pm Never trust someone who calls you 'friend' when you don't know from a bar of soap.

Trust is a tricky word. It’s true we cannot know anyone else. But we can know ourself, if we are totally honest. We may not always show parts of ourselves to others in fear of them rejecting us, but deep down, aren’t we all the same human presence, with all the same hidden baggage and maybe demons.


As a human presence, who wouldn’t say no to a cuddle or some loving affection and some positive vibes from others.
And also, every best friend or intimate lover you have ever known, once started out as a complete stranger. So being closed off to others in fear of totally distrusting them, is a self inflicted isolation, that you either enjoy, or repel. I would rather remain open to potential and possibilities because we’re all the same human presences, underneath all our egoic pretensions.

I wasn't 'talking' to you. Perhaps that wasn't clear. And I don't need one of your virtue-signalling lectures thanks just the same.

Ok so you were not talking to me, but you are not resisting the temptation to address this subject topic.

That said, you are welcome to discuss anything here, and is it ok if I talk to you?

I’m wondering do you think the image you posted here on this thread, is worthy of being dated?

Of course, you do not have to answer that, you could just ignore the question and nothing will change, and no one would hardly care quite frankly.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:31 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 2:00 pm

Trust is a tricky word. It’s true we cannot know anyone else. But we can know ourself, if we are totally honest. We may not always show parts of ourselves to others in fear of them rejecting us, but deep down, aren’t we all the same human presence, with all the same hidden baggage and maybe demons.


As a human presence, who wouldn’t say no to a cuddle or some loving affection and some positive vibes from others.
And also, every best friend or intimate lover you have ever known, once started out as a complete stranger. So being closed off to others in fear of totally distrusting them, is a self inflicted isolation, that you either enjoy, or repel. I would rather remain open to potential and possibilities because we’re all the same human presences, underneath all our egoic pretensions.

I wasn't 'talking' to you. Perhaps that wasn't clear. And I don't need one of your virtue-signalling lectures thanks just the same.

Ok so you were not talking to me, but you are not resisting the temptation to address this subject topic.

That said, you are welcome to discuss anything here, and is it ok if I talk to you?

I’m wondering do you think the image you posted here on this thread, is worthy of being dated?

Of course, you do not have to answer that, you could just ignore the question and nothing will change, and no one would hardly care quite frankly.

By 'dated' do you mean 'carbon dated'? Going out of fashion? Yes, I do think that man deserves to go out of fashion. No, I do not think a man has a right to insert himself into a woman-only dating app pretending to be a 'lesbian'. You can 'date' him for all I care. He can go to a bar where 'filters' don't work and women can hear his deep male voice. What I do care about is when these entitled, misogynistic freaks encroach on the rights of women.

And no doubt you will go into some little virtue-signalling handmaiden routine so I'll save you the bother.

As I pointed out, it's a landmark case that renders ANYTHING that is 'women-only' obsolete and open to any opportunistic predatory man. Women can actually be imprisoned for objecting.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 12:31 pm Trying to narrow or 'put' parts of the group human beings into sub-groups like "men" and/or "women" will never work, properly and Correctly, and as such 'seeing' you human beings as such or as anything else is just 'an illusion', as you would say "fairy".

The illusion I’ve previously mentioned has always been in reference to the artificial sense of separation.

Yes, and creating and making "men" and "women" is, obviously, an 'artificial sense of separation'. Or, do you not agree?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm The separation is illusory that’s all.

But, creating and making an apparent separation is what is being done when the ones known as human beings conceives, and/or conceptualizes, a 'separation' through and names and labels, themselves.

However, this 'perceived separation' is, and was, what was needed for 'I', the One, to be able to come-to-know (thy) Self.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm The illusion still exists though, insofar as the illusion is felt as real.

Only by you human beings, only.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm There are real people out there Age, unless one would rather change the concept “people” to “illusion”

Consider that it has always been 'you', the one here known as "fairy", (well this time anyway), who has continually tried to argue or fight against when 'I' would point out and say that it is only 'you', people, who are creating a 'sense of separation' through the different and individual thoughts and thinking within human bodies, alone. 'you', "fairy", kept claiming that the word 'you', which obviously denotes and refers to different individual human beings was the one and only One.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm In the dream of separation, that’s the only place where the illusory characters live and have their being, albeit illusory, and that does not negate their character as not existing, no, they exist as their concept known.

When 'you' say and use the word 'their' here, then who and/or what are 'you' referring to, exactly?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm Hello Age, or would Age rather I greeted Age with …hello illusion

Why do 'you', quite frequently, appear to want to be 'in conflict', instead of just wanting to 'work together', as One?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 12:08 pm Never trust someone who calls you 'friend' when you don't know from a bar of soap.

Trust is a tricky word. It’s true we cannot know anyone else. But we can know ourself,

The word "ourself" is an oxymoron and/or a contradiction in terms, which is used by you adult human beings to, literally, attempt to fool and deceive the One and only Self. Using words like "ourself" is, literally, what is discussed in story form, within the bible, about the 'devil/ish one' trying to con, trick, deceive, and/or fool you human beings in regards to who and what the one and only, True, One really is.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm if we are totally honest.

Once one of you adult human beings became Truly, totally, Honest, and Open, while, seriously, Wanting and seeking to change, for the better, then that is when 'that one' came-to-know who and what 'I' am, and, literally, properly, Correctly, and exactly.

There is no one nor our who owns nor has a Self. There is only the One Self, alone HERE

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm We may not always show parts of ourselves to others in fear of them rejecting us, but deep down, aren’t we all the same human presence, with all the same hidden baggage and maybe demons.

To be able to comprehend and understand 'all-there-is' far easier, far simpler, and thus far better, then removing all of the 'false and separate baggage' that comes with labeling and name calling, like for example, "a/theist", "wo/men", and other sub-group forms like job categories, culture categories, country categories, theological categories, and/or any of the other categories or smaller groups categorized by smaller sub-group categories.

To understand absolutely all there is to and within 'philosophical discussions and topics' the only 'things' that need/ed to be 'looked at', 'discussed', and 'known' is that what exists, in the days when this is being written, are there are human beings, which are made up of two fundamental things;

1. What is called a 'human body', which is visible. And,

2. What is called a 'person', which is invisible. Which is made up of two things, 'thoughts' and 'emotions'.

What else that also needs to be 'known', 'looked at', and 'discussed' is that all human beings were created and evolve, and that there are two stages within human beings evolving creation, which are the not yet responsible stage, and the responsible stage. This applies to an individual human being, and, to human beings collectively. So, the only 'sub-groups' of human beings, individually, and, collectively could be defined or denoted as 'children' and or from 'adults'.

I do not like to 'separate' at all. However, to comprehend and understand who and what 'I', God, the Universe am, exactly, a perceived sense of separation is needed when 'philosophical discussions', in order to become wiser, take place. However, the least amount of separation is only what is needed. Any further 'conceptual separation' into completely unnecessary 'sub-groups' only causes confusion, and/or conflict. As the last few thousand years, hitherto when this is being written, proves absolutely so.

Obviously there are what are called 'human beings', who only need to be 'separated' into two groups of 'children' and 'adults' only here, and which all of are separated from every other animal by the ability of the human being, again individually and collectively, to be able to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. No other animal has this ability.

Once 'this' is fully comprehended and understood, then 'we' can move along and proceed to learning far, far more.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm As a human presence, who wouldn’t say no to a cuddle or some loving affection and some positive vibes from others.

What human beings 'need' in order to live, and to stay alive, keep surviving, are just four things alone, with one of them being 'attention', itself.

Also, and by the way, human beings do not need 'positive vibes', nor 'negative vibes', human beings 'need' 'True vibes', that is; if they want to learn, and progress, properly and Correctly. If a so-called 'positive vibe' is False in absolutely any way, shape, or form, then this is certainly 'not needed', and certainly was 'not wanted'. That is; before one had been abused/ill-treated and had become 'not Right', (for lack of better wording).

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm And also, every best friend or intimate lover you have ever known, once started out as a complete stranger.

Why is not every best friend or even intimate lover just absolutely every human being anyway?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm So being closed off to others in fear of totally distrusting them, is a self inflicted isolation, that you either enjoy, or repel.

1. Expressing and explaining how 'you', personally, feel and see things here is a great way to learn, and grow.

2. Only an 'adult' 'self-inflicts things upon "itself".

3. If a 'child' has become closed off to others, in fear of totally distrusting them, then this is, solely, because of what 'adults' have done to 'that child'.

4. All forms of 'abuse' can end up being liked, or enjoyed, over being habitually used to 'the abuse', for one reason. Another reason is because of what was being denied or being missed out on.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 1:49 pm I would rather remain open to potential and possibilities because we’re all the same human presences, underneath all our egoic pretensions.

Although you like to some times also claim that you prefer to be 'alone'.

Now, although when you have said and made these claims, it was obvious that there were just 'egotistic pretensions', you like to claiming that 'you' prefer to be alone, because this was 'your way' of 'feeling comfort', from the 'consistent abuse', which 'you' 'had to endure', when 'you' were but just 'a child'.

This 'now' 'adult self-inflicted isolation' is not what the 'real you' Truly wants, nor needs, but was, and is, just how 'you', literally alone, have 'learned' how 'to survive', and 'feel' somewhat 'comfortable', in Life. And, not because of any Wrong doing on 'your part' but, solely, on 'the part' of what 'adult/s' have done, or not done, 'to you', when 'you' were 'a child'.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:34 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 10:14 am Discuss.

A long term relationship will reveal that the self-cherishing of one is the cause of all problems for two.

What do you mean by 'self-cherishing' here, exactly?

And, is 'it' in regards to 'the other one', in the relationship? Or, to "one's" own 'self', in the relationship?

This can legally shower with girls. Object at your peril.

Any woman who rejects 'her' because of 'her' magical lady-penis is nothing more than despicable transphobic nazi scum.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:56 pm

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Hi Fairy,

Great question my friend.

There is such a huge volume that can be said on this matter........like a million rabbit holes one can go down.

I'll see if I can toss a larger more general net as a reply.

I believe it all boils down to why we are here in the 1st place. Here, meaning, here on earth.

We are male or female, or 1 or the other "feeling" like you should be the other, etc.... all for a deeper reason that goes back to why you are here in the 1st place. To learn and grow.

The relationships, marriage is equally a learning experience. The better you are in picking the right spouse, the better your life is. But maybe you (the deeper you) picked a particular spouse for there are things you need to learn from that person. Yes, a deeper reason.

A riding friend of mine recently made a comment about having constant issues with his wife. Then said, he guesses all relationships are like that. I said, mine is not. He paused and nothing more was said.

Are we better to be alone? Again, there is such a variation in that matter. There are like no absolutes, I would say. In general, I'd say no. We are meant to socialize. Have a spouse, etc... Studies even showed that married men live longer than single men.

Yes, your posting Fairy is a good one. It opens the door for a good discussion so kudos to you.

We need to see the bigger picture to understand the smaller more segmented parts.

Mark

Thanks Mark for your participation here.

I love the way you express your world views and share your ideas and opinions with us, and thanks for the compliments regarding the thread topic. I personally think relationships never end, they simply complete.

If 'relationships', them self, ended, then Life, Itself, ends.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:56 pm As if yes, there is something to learn from each other.

In regards to learning about Life, and living, Itself, then 'we' learn far better from each other.

And, by the way, the younger a human being is, then another can, and will, learn far, far more from them about Life, and living.

No human being needs discipline/punishment. To learn about Life, and living, themselves, properly and Correctly then adult human beings just need to obtain and have 'self-discipline', only, in order to learn how to 'listen' to the very young in order to learn the actual Truth about how to live, properly and Correctly.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:56 pm And then one simply moves on with their particular souls growth.

Did anyone see this coming? That being a revolting, predatory, fetishistic, perverted smelly ballsack would become the latest fashion statement and 'protected minority', earning rapturous applause and devotion from an adoring public?

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Hi Fairy,

Great question my friend.

There is such a huge volume that can be said on this matter........like a million rabbit holes one can go down.

I'll see if I can toss a larger more general net as a reply.

I believe it all boils down to why we are here in the 1st place. Here, meaning, here on earth.

Why only here, 'on earth'? Why not HERE, 'in the Universe'?

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am We are male or female, or 1 or the other "feeling" like you should be the other, etc.... all for a deeper reason that goes back to why you are here in the 1st place. To learn and grow.

'you' human beings are not "male" nor "female". 'you', human beings, are 'human beings'. End of story. Now, if any of 'you' want to 'separate' you human beings in any way, shape, or form, then do so by 'separating' the Truly not yet responsible ones from the ones who are meant to be Truly responsible, only.

Now, why you human beings are HERE, 'in the Universe' is not to 'learn, and grow'. As you will grow, maturely or immaturely, anyway.

Why you are actually HERE for is to 'learn, and teach'. The actual purpose of human beings is 'To learn, and teach', but not necessarily in that order at all.

See, if you adult human beings 'learned' what is actually True and Right, in Life, first, and then 'taught' 'that', only, then 'the world' in which you adult human beings have created, and are creating, here, 'on earth', then would, already, be a 'much better place', 'now'.

By the way, the younger a human being is, exactly, then the more they can 'teach' you about what is actually, irrefutably, True, and Right, in Life.

you adult human beings just need to learn 'how to' 'listen', 'and learn', properly and Correctly, first.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am The relationships, marriage is equally a learning experience. The better you are in picking the right spouse, the better your life is.

Are you including picking the most opposing and/or conflicting person, 'for one', as the 'right spouse', here?

See, some times what is 'the better' or 'the best' for one's life is not necessarily the 'most easiest' nor 'most comfortable'.

Some times 'we' can learn more, and thus grow better, from when 'we' are 'in conflict', with others.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am But maybe you (the deeper you) picked a particular spouse for there are things you need to learn from that person. Yes, a deeper reason.

A riding friend of mine recently made a comment about having constant issues with his wife. Then said, he guesses all relationships are like that. I said, mine is not. He paused and nothing more was said.

Are you implying that there was some kind of 'deeper understanding' here, or that both or either of you came to some sort of 'realization' here?

If yes, then will 'you' share with 'us' what it is that you are implying here?

Or, did 'you' just want to share, with 'us', just some particular thing that happened and occurred, only?

Also, and by the way, you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, had a very strong tendency to presume that what happens in 'your individual lives' and/or how you individual think or 'look at' and 'see' things is how 'others must or do also'.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Are we better to be alone?

Here is further proof of how 'these people', back then, were constantly 'looking at' and 'seeing' things from an 'individual' or 'egotistical' 'perspective'.

Asking, 'Are 'we' better to be alone?' when thinking about an individual human being alone can be and is answered, properly and Correctly, when 'looked at' and 'seen' from the 'perspective' of 'we' being human beings, collectively.

The answer is a resounding 'No'.

There is absolutely NO thing, individually nor collectively, that is 'better' to be 'alone'.

This goes without saying, I had previously been thinking.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Again, there is such a variation in that matter.

Very, very True. Which means just expressing and asking without specifics means that there, really, is only One True, Right, Accurate, and Correct answer.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am There are like no absolutes, I would say.

But there are. As I just showed and proved.

If there were just human beings alone, collectively, or individually, and absolutely nothing else, then 'that one' could not, and thus would not, survive.

Nor would 'it' even want to survive, if 'it' was completely and utterly 'alone'.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am In general, I'd say no. We are meant to socialize.

Absolutely all things that are alive are, and were, meant to socialize, with some thing. Otherwise 'they';

1. Would not have come to be alive.
2. Would not survive.
3. Would not want to remain alive, and survive.
4. Could not remain alive, and survive.

Even a so-called "hermit" not just 'needs' other things, in order to survive, and remain alive, but also 'wants' to 'interact' with 'other things', in one or some way or another.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Have a spouse, etc...

Having 'a spouse', or 'one spouse' only, is completely unnecessary, and might not be 'the best', for two reasons.

1. Being 'lawfully married' is obviously absolutely unnecessary, and just another way that 'the state' can and has 'more control' over 'more of you'.

2. Feeling as though 'one' is, or actually is, 'tied' or 'shackled' to 'another' can also prevent proper and Correct 'socialization', and thus not be conducive to nor for the 'best outcome' of all.

If, however, two human beings are absolutely comfortable in absolutely every way being so-called 'married' 'together', this is working 'absolutely perfectly' for all involved, then all well and good.

But, like a lot of things, what 'marriage' once previously meant, and referred to, exactly, got taken out of context, misinterpreted, and replaced by just another government 'enforced' thing, and where 'money' ended up being exchanged for.

When the intended word of 'marriage' is done properly, and Correctly, in regards to you human beings, then this is perfectly all well, and good.

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Studies even showed that married men live longer than single men.

I would not be at all surprised if 'studies' also found that so-called "men" who had more and/or closer relationships with more other human beings lived longer again, as well.

Also, have studies found that so-called "women" live longer when they are so-called 'married' or when they are so-called 'single'?

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am Yes, your posting Fairy is a good one. It opens the door for a good discussion so kudos to you.

Is there not a thread, within this forum, that does not open the so-called 'door' for a so-called 'good discussion'?

BuzzCap7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 11:59 am We need to see the bigger picture to understand the smaller more segmented parts.

Mark

So, why only look at and talk about in regards to 'on earth', only, instead of looking at and talking about in regards to 'the Universe'?

And, obviously, 'in general', is not better, nor even a possibility, for human beings, individually or collectively, to 'be alone'.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 9:19 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:31 pm

I wasn't 'talking' to you. Perhaps that wasn't clear. And I don't need one of your virtue-signalling lectures thanks just the same.

Ok so you were not talking to me, but you are not resisting the temptation to address this subject topic.

That said, you are welcome to discuss anything here, and is it ok if I talk to you?

I’m wondering do you think the image you posted here on this thread, is worthy of being dated?

Of course, you do not have to answer that, you could just ignore the question and nothing will change, and no one would hardly care quite frankly.

By 'dated' do you mean 'carbon dated'? Going out of fashion? Yes, I do think that man deserves to go out of fashion. No, I do not think a man has a right to insert himself into a woman-only dating app pretending to be a 'lesbian'. You can 'date' him for all I care. He can go to a bar where 'filters' don't work and women can hear his deep male voice. What I do care about is when these entitled, misogynistic freaks encroach on the rights of women.

And, what are the so-called 'rights of women', exactly?

On second thought, let 'us' 'see' if 'you' can actually define what a 'woman' is, first.

Once you have done this, successfully, then 'you' can share with 'us' what are these 'rights of women' of which you speak of here are, exactly.

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm And no doubt you will go into some little virtue-signalling handmaiden routine so I'll save you the bother.

As I pointed out, it's a landmark case that renders ANYTHING that is 'women-only'

Will you list the things that are, or were, so-called 'women-only'? And then, explain when those things 'became' 'women-only'?

If no, then why not?

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 6:57 pm obsolete and open to any opportunistic predatory man. Women can actually be imprisoned for objecting.

Are you aware of just how Truly scared, fearful, and/or hateful you come across here in regards to some so-called particular class, or group, that you have created and have separated from you 'other' human beings?