Hi how’s your penis?
Summary
Stuck to my leg. It’s hot and I don’t have AC.
1 Like
Instead traditional workouts which Im becoming very bored with…I switched it up…I just alternate between motions that focus on the upper body and the lower body…like combining lunges and split squats with shoulder presses…
Combining a bunch of exercises into a sequence of nonstop motion makes the workout more dynamic…and fun…
Trying something new…if I’m consistent I’ll post updates…
So far I’m hitting every muscle group and activating certain muscles which helps me feel more symmetrical… I did hurt my back a couple of times…but then I got used to the weights…and my scoliosis feels like it’s been fixed.
That’s why I like swimming so much.
1 Like
IMO, this is the best way to do it.
I think a lot of people are exercising for reasons other than general wellness and this leads to very restrictive advice for only working certain muscle groups, when to take rests, etc, in a one-size-fits-all sort of manner. Doing what’s right for you and what makes you feel better than before is really an important factor when it comes to reducing injury and never really overdoing it, imo.
Of course, it’s not as trendy, but i think getting a good workout without totally wearing ourselves down gets more important as we age, too.
1 Like
Asking chatgpt silly questions..
In this I asked it how solve inequality without equity.
Without using equity-based policies (policies that explicitly aim to produce more equal outcomes across groups), there are still many approaches that seek to reduce inequality by emphasizing equal opportunity, economic growth, and universal rules.
Some examples include:
Improve K–12 education for everyone. Raise school quality, expand early childhood education, strengthen literacy and math instruction, and increase vocational and apprenticeship programs that are available to all students.
Promote economic growth. Encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, infrastructure investment, and competition so that wages and employment opportunities increase across the economy.
Simplify the tax code. Some advocate lower, broader taxes that encourage investment while maintaining a safety net through neutral, broadly available tax credits.
Reduce barriers to work. Reform occupational licensing, zoning, and permitting rules that can make it harder for people to start businesses, move to areas with better jobs, or enter certain professions.
Strengthen universal social programs. Policies like Social Security, Medicare, or a universal child benefit can reduce poverty without targeting specific demographic groups.
Expand workforce training. Make technical education, community college, and reskilling programs widely accessible regardless of race, ethnicity, or other characteristics.
Increase housing supply. Easing zoning restrictions and encouraging more home construction can lower housing costs, which disproportionately affect lower-income households.
Enforce equal treatment under the law. Ensure anti-discrimination laws are applied consistently so people have equal access to jobs, housing, education, and public services.
Whether these policies are sufficient depends on one’s view of the causes of inequality.
Those who prioritize equality of opportunity often argue that universal policies and equal legal treatment are the fairest way to reduce inequality.
Those who support equity-based approaches argue that historical and structural disadvantages mean universal policies alone may not fully address disparities between groups.
The debate is less about whether inequality should be reduced and more about which methods are most effective and fair. Different political and economic perspectives place different emphasis on universal policies versus targeted interventions.
The manosphere and red pill literature is the shitty equivalent of the vagina monologues for men…
Ode to masculinity penis…magnificent glorious cocks a bastion a male gender equity rights erect, not flacid when facing the villainous enemy that is feminism.
Disclaimer…a real man wouldnt complain about feeling oppressed by feminism nor would they perform by virtue signaling.
Anyone here like reading non-fiction..and if so, what sort?
2 Likes
I and others have been dumping them in the book thread for years now. Also, it’d good to see you around these parts again 
1 Like
Yeah..should have remembered that..it’s been a while since I was here last. Have to go now..please pass me my zimmer frame. 
1 Like
These themes all converge on a central philosophical question: How do human beings justify treating one another unequally while simultaneously believing themselves to be moral?
A useful way to approach this is to see racism, discrimination, imperialism, and other forms of domination not as isolated problems but as recurring expressions of the same underlying tendencies in human psychology and social organization.
The Moral Paradox of Racism
Racism is often described simply as prejudice based on race, but philosophically it is something deeper: it is the reduction of a person’s moral individuality into a predetermined category. Instead of evaluating a person according to their actions and character, race becomes a substitute for moral judgment.
This creates an ethical contradiction.
Every person experiences themselves as a unique individual deserving of dignity, yet racism denies that same individuality to others. It asks one group to be judged by personal merit while judging another group by inherited characteristics.
Many philosophers have argued that morality becomes impossible if this inconsistency is accepted. If universal moral principles only apply to one’s own group, then they are not truly universal principles at all—they are merely preferences disguised as ethics.
Equality and the Meaning of Equal Rights
Equality is often misunderstood as meaning that everyone is identical.
People differ enormously in talents, personalities, cultures, beliefs, ambitions, and abilities.
The philosophical argument for equality is instead that every person possesses equal moral worth.
Equal rights emerge from this idea.
They do not guarantee identical outcomes.
They guarantee that:
justice should not depend upon race
dignity should not depend upon status
laws should apply equally
opportunities should not be arbitrarily restricted
every individual deserves to be treated as an end in themselves rather than merely as a means to someone else’s goals.
Equal rights therefore represent restraint on power rather than redistribution of human value.
Discrimination and the Corruption of Moral Vision
Discrimination becomes ethically dangerous whenever it replaces careful judgment with collective assumptions.
Humans naturally categorize.
This cognitive shortcut helps us survive.
The ethical challenge is recognizing that useful generalizations become unjust when they determine how we treat individuals before we know them.
The opposite of prejudice is not naïveté.
It is discernment.
Good judgment distinguishes between individual conduct and inherited identity.
Fighting for Equal Rights Without Moral Tribalism
History shows that movements for justice can become distorted if they begin to imitate the very logic they originally opposed.
If the principle changes from
“Everyone deserves equal treatment.”
to
“Our group deserves special moral exemption.”
the movement has abandoned universal ethics in favor of tribal ethics.
Real justice remains consistent regardless of who possesses power.
The strongest moral arguments survive even when roles are reversed.
Social Imperialism and Unethical Exploitation
Throughout history, powerful societies have frequently justified domination by claiming moral superiority.
Colonialism, forced assimilation, slavery, economic exploitation, and cultural destruction were often defended as “civilizing missions.”
The pattern is remarkably consistent:
Define another group as inferior.
Convince oneself that domination benefits them.
Profit materially.
Describe exploitation as virtue.
This illustrates how moral language can become a mask for self-interest.
The danger is not confined to one civilization or historical period.
Whenever people believe their culture is uniquely righteous, they become more vulnerable to rationalizing injustice.
Civilization and Savagery
One of the oldest philosophical errors is confusing technological sophistication with moral sophistication.
A civilization may possess:
advanced science
magnificent architecture
efficient institutions
impressive wealth
while simultaneously committing atrocities.
Likewise, societies labeled “primitive” have often exhibited remarkable traditions of cooperation, hospitality, ecological stewardship, or restorative justice.
“Civilized” and “savage” therefore reveal as much about the observer’s values as they do about the observed society.
The line between civilization and barbarism is not drawn between cultures.
It runs through every culture—and through every individual.
The Illusion of Power
Power appears absolute.
History suggests otherwise.
Empires collapse.
Fortunes disappear.
Political systems change.
Influence fades.
Even dictators eventually become historical subjects rather than historical actors.
Power is therefore highly contingent.
Much of what people struggle over consists of temporary advantages.
This does not mean power is meaningless—it clearly shapes people’s lives—but it is often mistaken for lasting significance.
People frequently sacrifice relationships, integrity, compassion, and inner peace in pursuit of status that ultimately proves fragile.
In that sense, power resembles a zero-sum competition over something that time eventually erases.
What often endures longer than power itself is character and the consequences of one’s actions.
The Danger of Absolute Righteousness
Perhaps the greatest philosophical warning concerns certainty.
Nearly every historical atrocity has been committed by people convinced they were morally justified.
Absolute certainty removes the need for self-examination.
When individuals stop asking,
“Could I be mistaken?”
they become capable of extraordinary cruelty while believing themselves virtuous.
Humility is therefore not weakness.
It is an ethical safeguard.
The willingness to question oneself often prevents the dehumanization of others.
Justice Without Excusing Wrongdoing
Compassion does not require abandoning accountability.
Likewise, accountability does not require abandoning compassion.
A balanced ethical framework can hold both ideas simultaneously:
Every person possesses inherent dignity.
Every individual is responsible for their choices.
Harm should be acknowledged honestly.
Circumstances can help explain behavior without automatically excusing it.
Justice should seek truth rather than revenge.
Mercy should not erase responsibility.
This avoids two opposite errors:
condemning people without understanding them
understanding people in ways that erase moral responsibility
Both justice and compassion are diminished when separated from one another.
Beyond Group Identity
One philosophical lesson repeated across many traditions is that identities are real and meaningful, but they are not the entirety of a person.
Race, nationality, religion, ideology, class, and culture all shape experience.
None fully define an individual.
When identity becomes someone’s entire moral identity, disagreement easily turns into dehumanization.
When individuality is recognized alongside group identity, dialogue becomes possible.
Toward an Ethic of Shared Humanity
A more enduring ethical vision rests on several principles:
Judge people primarily by their actions rather than inherited characteristics.
Extend equal moral concern even to those outside one’s own group.
Resist using noble ideals to justify exploitation or domination.
Remain skeptical of claims to absolute moral certainty.
Exercise compassion without abandoning accountability.
Recognize that power, status, and dominance are temporary, while the effects of justice and injustice often persist across generations.
Treat every person as someone whose humanity is as real to them as yours is to you.
This perspective does not ask us to ignore history or pretend conflicts do not exist. Rather, it asks us to refuse the temptation to let history become a justification for repeating the same patterns of domination under different banners. The aspiration is neither moral relativism nor moral absolutism, but a principled universalism: applying the same standards of dignity, fairness, and responsibility to ourselves as we expect others to uphold. That consistency is demanding, but it is one of the strongest foundations for resisting racism, discrimination, and exploitation while fostering a society in which justice and compassion reinforce, rather than undermine, one another.
1 Like
A philosophical analysis of racism, tribal hatred, and tribal conflict begins with a common question: What do human beings owe one another as moral equals, despite belonging to different groups? Different philosophical traditions answer this differently, but most converge on the idea that moral worth should not depend on race, ethnicity, or tribal identity.
1. Racism: A Moral and Philosophical Analysis
Racism is more than dislike between groups. Philosophically, it is the belief or practice of assigning moral, intellectual, or social value to individuals primarily because of their racial identity.
There are three dimensions:
Prejudice: Negative beliefs or attitudes about a racial group.
Discrimination: Acting differently because of race.
Domination: Social or political systems that systematically advantage some racial groups over others.
From the perspective of justice, racism violates the principle that equals deserve equal moral consideration.
Kant
Immanuel Kant argued that every rational person possesses intrinsic dignity and must never be treated merely as a means. Racism fails this test because it judges individuals by group membership rather than by their humanity.
Rawls
John Rawls proposed imagining society from behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows what race or social status they will have. Few would choose institutions that privilege one race if they might be born into any race.
2. people define racism differently.
Definition 1: Racism = Any race-based discrimination
Under this definition, discrimination against anyone because of race—including members of historically dominant groups—is racism.
For example:
Refusing to hire someone solely because they are white.
Excluding someone solely because they are Black.
Judging someone’s character because they are Asian.
These are morally wrong because they violate impartiality.
Definition 2: Racism = Prejudice plus institutional power
Some sociologists define racism as prejudice reinforced by systemic power. Under this framework, an individual from a marginalized group can be prejudiced against a dominant group, but that prejudice may not constitute racism unless backed by institutional power.
This is primarily a sociological definition rather than a universal philosophical one.
Philosophical evaluation
From the standpoint of universal moral philosophy, wrongful discrimination is wrong regardless of who commits it. However, philosophers also recognize that identical acts can occur within very different historical and institutional contexts, which may affect their social consequences even if the underlying principle against unjust discrimination remains.
3. Tribal Hatred
Tribalism predates race by thousands of years.
Humans evolved in small groups competing for territory and resources. Loyalty to one’s own group (“ingroup”) often increased survival, but it also fostered suspicion of outsiders (“outgroups”).
Modern tribalism can be based on:
Ethnicity
Religion
Nationality
Political ideology
Language
Clan
Sports teams
Philosophically, tribalism becomes morally problematic when group loyalty overrides justice.
One may legitimately love one’s own community. The moral problem arises when loyalty justifies injustice toward outsiders.
4. Tribal Conflict
Many conflicts that appear racial are fundamentally tribal.
Examples include conflicts driven by:
Competition over land
Political power
Economic inequality
Historical grievances
Fear of domination
Revenge
Race often becomes a symbol around which these conflicts are organized rather than their sole cause.
5. Justice
Different theories of justice approach these issues differently.
Equality
Every individual deserves equal moral consideration.
Merit
People should be judged by actions, character, and abilities—not ancestry.
Corrective justice
Past injustice may justify measures to repair harm, but philosophers debate what forms of redress are fair and when they become unjust toward others.
This is one reason debates over affirmative action, reparations, and related policies are philosophically complex: they involve balancing equality, historical responsibility, and fairness.
6. Fairness
Fairness has at least two meanings.
Formal fairness
Everyone is treated by the same rules.
Substantive fairness
Rules should also account for significant disadvantages created by history or social conditions.
Many political disagreements arise because people emphasize one conception more than the other.
7. Morality
Most major ethical theories reject racial hatred.
Utilitarianism
Associated with John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism asks whether actions maximize overall well-being. Racism and tribal violence generally produce suffering, fear, retaliation, and instability, making them morally difficult to justify.
Deontology
Following Kantian ethics, discrimination based solely on group identity violates duties of respect owed to persons.
Virtue Ethics
Originating with Aristotle, virtue ethics asks what kind of person one should become. Hatred, cruelty, and prejudice are vices, whereas justice, courage, temperance, and practical wisdom are virtues.
8. The Paradox of Identity
Humans naturally form identities around groups.
Group identity can provide:
Belonging
Culture
Mutual support
Shared history
Yet it also creates the temptation to divide humanity into “us” and “them.”
Philosophers from the ancient Stoics to many contemporary thinkers have argued that local loyalties should exist within a broader commitment to the equal moral worth of all people.
9. Is Partiality Ever Justified?
Complete impartiality is difficult in everyday life.
Parents favor their children.
Citizens may prioritize fellow citizens.
People often feel stronger obligations toward family and community.
Most philosophers distinguish between:
Special obligations, such as duties to family or community, and
Equal moral worth, the idea that these obligations do not justify denying the basic rights or dignity of others.
Thus, caring more for one’s own group is not inherently immoral; harming or devaluing others because they belong to a different group is.
Conclusion
A broad philosophical synthesis suggests several principles:
Every person has equal intrinsic moral worth.
Judging individuals solely by race or tribal identity is generally inconsistent with justice.
Historical injustices matter morally, but efforts to address them should themselves be evaluated for fairness and proportionality.
Strong group identities can enrich human life, but they become ethically problematic when they override impartial justice or the equal dignity of others.
Durable peace across racial or tribal divisions depends not on eliminating group identities, but on establishing institutions and moral norms that protect individuals regardless of which group they belong to.
From this perspective, racism, tribal hatred, and related forms of discrimination are best understood not simply as conflicts between particular groups, but as recurring challenges to the ideals of justice, fairness, and equal moral respect.
Posted this chatgpt analysis because tired of bullshit tribal political feuding and things becoming a meaningless zero sum game of which gets made into a thing anyhow..
1 Like
Me too man. Tribalism. Standing proud on your hill. its almost passe at this point. That’s what I like to call existentialism. Very few people actually know what that means.
2 Likes
it took me a long time to reconcile the indifference of the universe (other people/society) versus what i want out of life. My (and your) over arching happiness takes far more precedence over what some other random fucker on the internet thinks. In reality what society wants and asks of us means absolutely nothing. Nothing. imagine you exist with no one else around to expect things of you. A tabula rasa would give your existence more meaning than following trends or literally anything within modern civilization. No status. you don’t need status. you exist and that’s all there is to it, no one can question you based on that alone. Feel good about yourself because you fuckin deserve it.
3 Likes
You are one tragedy away from defeat
3 Likes
Welcome back. 
Happy to see your posts.
Refreshing to see non shit posts from people…
Not knocking shit posts…but it’s good to have a balance
1 Like
What hill…I’m not preaching just debunking bad sophist rhetoric with more grounded logic..
I actually don’t self proclaim any moral superiority…because
I liek extra thiccccccccc butts…
So yeah I like big thick women…and that doesn’t give me any moral superiority whatsoever.
Just to be clear.
1 Like
What if all the scary information about the earth not surviving because of overpopulation, and the need for population control is a bullshit con to manipulate poor people from out populating the rich people so that the poor people through sheer force of numbers don’t upend the hierarchy that the wealthy have created.
I’m not attacking the legitimacy of humanity being more conscious of our environmental impact…and the need to make reforms so that we can harmoniously exist with nature…
moreso attacking the legitimacy of the global census and our ability to gauge earths ecosystem and it’s availability of resources.
Also bring back wildlife survival training before it becomes a lost skill.
1 Like
You do realize that, on the planet, the Poor outnumber the Rich by BILLIONS already, right???
1 Like
Yeah so…why do people still listen to Bill Gates and the like as leaders who will decide and shape our future.