[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 205 KB, 1024x679, EUlfAMcU8AMTdTm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15257898 No.15257898 [Reply] [Original]

Title basically. I have a father but he didn't really ingrain how to be a man in the traditional sense. I have a concept of what a man is but I have difficulty emulating that. I think its important to get back to true manhood as the concept is under attack these days from forces which want to make men effeminate and weak. Does anyone have any good literature on this subject?

>> No.15258028

The Pale king. Kinda.

>> No.15258155

>>15257898
Valmiki Ramayana, it's literally a story about the ideal everything, including man.

>> No.15258219

>>15257898

You are stuck in abstraction. There is no ideal man.

Reflect on your character, find out what it is you do best, what you love, and put yourself in those positions.

If your character is good, reflect on nobility. The only thing that defines your character empirically are your actions, your deeds; not your thoughts.

Lead by example, don't worry about comparisons to other men. Listen to your heart, it tells you what your character likes and dislikes. The more you do shit you dislike because your brain is caught up trying to compare itself to other men, you will be riddled with anxiety, stress, depression and you won't know why.

Listen to your heart. Follow it. Be kind to others. But do not tolerate evil. Every day focus on doing what your soul guides you to do.

This way, you become the man that you actually are, not the man that someone else is (if that makes sense).

Read Arthur Schopenhauer.

>> No.15258224

Listen to 2pac and KRS-1

>> No.15258228

Hadith

https://pastebin.com/2CJrErSe

>> No.15258242

>>15257898
Winnetou by May
Robinson Crusoe by Defoe
Don Quixote by Cervantes
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
Meditations by Aurelius
Discourses by Epictetus
Storm of Steel by Junger
Starting Strength by Rippetoe
Sayings of the Desert Fathers
The Poetic Edda
The Illiad and The Odyssey by Homer
The Republic by Plato
Nicomachean Ethics and Rhetoric by Aristotle
The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche
Essays by Emerson
Revolt Against the Modern World and Ride the Tiger by Evola
Art of War by Sun Tzu
Sun and Steel by Mishima

>> No.15258382

>>15257898
east of eden steinbeck wrote it in times when he was afraid of his son future

>> No.15258442

>>15258242
based ≥200 lbs poster

>> No.15258453

>>15257898
Marcus Aurelius' Meditations helped me when I had a life threatening illness, but the main thing is to take action. Get a job, work out and get fit, join a community, help people, possibly get an education. A man must do.

>> No.15258456
File: 23 KB, 217x300, 000B4416-03A7-42CB-9E7F-6966D2C66D66.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15258456

>>15257898
Why would you want to be miserable?

>> No.15258572

>>15258456
Then being a woman is good?

>> No.15258598

>>15258572
What would you say it is to be a Man?

>> No.15258638

>>15257898
Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
Or an autobiography of someone you respect or would like to be like. Benjamin Franklin's is a popular one.
>>15258242
The Republic is very good for this purpose, but it's a question of whether you're willing to read philosophy, which is inherently more challenging than most literature.

Nichomachean ethics as well.

>> No.15258661

>>15258598
>What would you say it is to be a Man?
Being a man is being the builder of civilization, is being a provider, is being responsible, is more than having penis, is having morals and a strong will. Great man build great civilizations.

>> No.15258894

>>15258661
Oh wow. Point to a civilization.
>a provider
So some women are also men.
>responsible
A good quality. Women are just as often also that.
Not trying to say women are better or the same, but there are plenty women have all these qualities.
Some people point to other qualities that make Men, and they’re actually qualities that destroy or unravel civility. It always seemed to me Men set up things like honor, morals and pease, with the very intent to dishonor, be immoral and wage wars. I mistrust the label

>> No.15258905

>>15258242
>The Odyssey by Homer
Underrated recommendation. Telemachus’ grapple with coming of age and failures to assert his manhood is one of the subtexts that no one ever talks about.

>> No.15258914

>>15258894
>>a provider
>So some women are also men.
>>responsible
>A good quality. Women are just as often also that.
Wrong both accounts. Women typically failure miserably in both areas pertaining to all things but childcare

>> No.15258948 [DELETED] 

>>15258894
>A good quality. Women are just as often also that.
Woman can be responsible. However, I don't think they would all the requirements.
>Not trying to say women are better or the same, but there are plenty women have all these qualities.
True. There are several woman that can met those requirements and yet they are few?
>Some people point to other qualities that make Men, and they’re actually qualities that destroy or unravel civility.
Like what? You think violence or war is bad? Give me examples. Being pacificist≠being civilized
>It always seemed to me Men set up things like honor, morals and pease, with the very intent to dishonor, be immoral and wage wars. I mistrust the label
Nothing wrong with violence or war. Those ideas were set by man as role model(Being strong, disicipline, etc) These ideas do not necessarily go against war they are actually compatible.
Now if you want to explain me why being a "woman" is better? Is there objective benefit of being woman in this context?

>> No.15258960

>>15258894
>A good quality. Women are just as often also that.
Woman can be responsible. However, I don't think many would fit all the requirements.
>Not trying to say women are better or the same, but there are plenty women have all these qualities.
True. There are several woman that can met those requirements and yet they are few?
>Some people point to other qualities that make Men, and they’re actually qualities that destroy or unravel civility.
Like what? You think violence or war is bad? Give me examples. Being pacificist≠being civilized
>It always seemed to me Men set up things like honor, morals and pease, with the very intent to dishonor, be immoral and wage wars. I mistrust the label
Nothing wrong with violence or war. Those ideas were set by man as role model(Being strong, disicipline, etc) These ideas do not necessarily go against war they are actually compatible.
Now if you want to explain me why being a "woman" is better? Is there objective benefit of being woman in this context?

>> No.15258965

>>15258914
>Women typically failure miserably in both areas pertaining to all things but childcare
Except for your mother, who obviously failed at raising you.

>> No.15259150

Just watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgiX1-PA_yc

>> No.15259198

>>15258914
>spends all day looking at instagram and pornhub girls
>this is all there is.
You got memed.

>>15258960
>and yet they are few?
But are they men? Clearly not.
>You think violence or war is bad?
It’s a known fact. A murder can be justified under some circumstances, but not wars. If everyone were pacifists yes, that would be civility.
>Nothing wrong with violence or war.
This is degeneracy. Attacking is done out of fear and weakness

>why being a "woman" is better?
Any woman can be a Man, as we’ve seen, so obviously any woman can be as degenerate. So called feminine attributes might lead to less degeneracy, but I’m not claiming the sex is better
Though I prefer them in so many ways.

>> No.15259229

>>15259198
Yo why do you pretend to be someone who was outted as a guy pretending to be a woman?

>> No.15259275

>>15259198
>But are they men? Clearly not.
Not, but the have qualities of men.
>It’s a known fact.
Citation required. From an objective perspective war can be bad or good.
>A murder can be justified under some circumstances, but not wars. If everyone were pacifists yes, that would be civility.
Pace is overrated. A lot of progress in humanity was thanks to war. You think that a lot of inventions we have today would exist without war? War makes people creative. We develop new ways to destroy enemies. Also thanks to war many civilizations could exist today. War can help the spread ideas and cultures, just like the ancients conquered locals and assimilated into their cultures.
>This is degeneracy.
Degeneracy? According to who? because you are unironically a degenerate as well according to the traditional meaning. Being a lesbian goes again the natural order. You are trying to reshape the definition of degerancy to fit your ideas.
>inb4:jebussss say that xdd
I don't believe in god. I am more of a darwninist. I believe more natural selection and eugenics.
>Attacking is done out of fear and weakness
Nothing wrong with attack. Attacking the right people could save many people
>Any woman can be a Man, as we’ve seen, so obviously any woman can be as degenerate. So called feminine attributes might lead to less degeneracy, but I’m not claiming the sex is better
Give me examples how those attributes lead to better society? Does feminity gave us computers? Does feminity gave us science? Does feminity created great civilizations? Give examples. You think the ideal way of life is us being primitive hippies?

>> No.15259286

Being a good person is more important than being a man or woman.

>> No.15259287

>>15259275
Refer to

>>15259229
On why that poster is a bad actor to debate with

>> No.15259288

>>15259150
nice videos lol Totti was based

>> No.15259292

>>15259286
>Being a good person is more important than being a man or woman.
What is even a good person?

>> No.15259298

The New Testament

>> No.15259299

>>15259292
Start with the Greeks

>> No.15259319

>>15259275
>I get to say what Natural order is!
You are parroting an old and sick tradition that is degenerate.
Love is not degenerate. Violence is degenerate. That you don’t see that is proof your mental illness.

>Nothing wrong with attack. Attacking the right people could save many people
Given. But if everyone were actually civil and pacifist, then there IS something wrong with it.

>>15259229
‘Ey yoyoyo. Wut you talkin ‘bout?
Step off muh tits.

>> No.15259322

>>15259292
Is that you, Socrates?

>> No.15259329

>>15257898
>how to be a man in the traditional sense
why would you want this. Just be yourself and not some ideal that's caused whole generations of males to be stubborn and insecure without any emotion

>> No.15259333

>>15257898
Blood Meridian

>> No.15259341

>>15259319
You didn't refute any of my previous points.

>You are parroting an old and sick tradition that is degenerate. Love is not degenerate. Violence is degenerate. That you don’t see that is proof your mental illness.
According to what? Idiot. Animals use violence most the time, are they mentally ill? nature is intrisically violent whether you liked or not. Also, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction. Feeling love to children is good in your opinion? What is the definition of degenarate?
Feeling love towards a murder is good? Wanting to fuck a horse is good?
>Given. But if everyone were actually civil and pacifist, then there IS something wrong with it.
That creates weakness. What if a superior species decides to conquer us? Pacific civilizations were meant to fall quickly because they would be conquered by foreigners eventually.
Now refute this
>Give me examples how those attributes lead to better society? Does feminity gave us computers? Does feminity gave us science? Does feminity created great civilizations? Give examples. You think the ideal way of life is us being primitive hippies?
And this
>Degeneracy? According to who? because you are unironically a degenerate as well according to the traditional meaning. Being a lesbian goes again the natural order. You are trying to reshape the definition of degerancy to fit your ideas.
And this
>Pace is overrated. A lot of progress in humanity was thanks to war. You think that a lot of inventions we have today would exist without war? War makes people creative. We develop new ways to destroy enemies. Also thanks to war many civilizations could exist today. War can help the spread ideas and cultures, just like the ancients conquered locals and assimilated into their cultures.

>> No.15259363
File: 40 KB, 477x720, 477x720xEvolution-of-Philosophy-meme.jpg.pagespeed.ic_.H9El-Y9vVy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259363

>>15259322
No, is me. Aristotle.

>> No.15259416

>>15259198
>Women are naturally nonviolent

Hahahahahaha
That's even more memed than this stupid Archie Bunker shit in this thread

>> No.15259428 [DELETED] 

>>15259416
>this stupid Archie Bunker shit in this thread
Do you want to refute any of claims? Your are welcome to.

>> No.15259432

>>15259329
>without any emotion
What is this shit?
There is no dispassionate man.
Dispassion is for old, dying men.
A man's heart is wild and free. There's a difference between Self-Control and denying emotion.
Deny you even have emotion and it controls you outright.

>> No.15259439 [DELETED] 

>>15259416
>this stupid Archie Bunker shit in this thread
Do you want to refute any of my claims? Your are welcome to.

>> No.15259445

>>15259416
>this stupid Archie Bunker shit in this thread
Do you want to refute any of my claims? You are welcome to.

>> No.15259454

>>15259445
Point out which ones are yours if you would.

>> No.15259463

>>15259454
These 3
>>15259341
>>15259275
>>15258960

>> No.15259505

>>15259463
For one, adaptation, Darwinism, doesn't care about anything but surviving just long enough to make kids that live long enough to have kids.
Gay people serve that role in that they help provide for and protect children.
2. The idea that women are naturally less violent or warlike is nonsense. They tend to get away with their violence more, as well, legally and culturally. Like those Angels Of Mercy that work as nurses and suffocate suffering terminally ill patients.
Consider also how many women are working in the military and in government pushing for and facilitating war, and this goes back into ancient history.

That's a start.

>> No.15259521

>>15259505
>For one, adaptation, Darwinism, doesn't care about anything but surviving just long enough to make kids that live long enough to have kids.
Agree
>Gay people serve that role in that they help provide for and protect children.
That would be in theory. Many adopted children by lgbti parents are usually abused and mistreated.
>2. The idea that women are naturally less violent or warlike is nonsense. They tend to get away with their violence more, as well, legally and culturally. Like those Angels Of Mercy that work as nurses and suffocate suffering terminally ill patients.
Consider also how many women are working in the military and in government pushing for and facilitating war, and this goes back into ancient history.
Agree

>> No.15259523

>>15259463
Some evidence for you.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00081/full

Bloody Gina Haspel is the head of the CIA for one glaring example.

>> No.15259530

>>15259521
Then you aren't the Archie Bunker shit I was talking about, go about your business.

>> No.15259533

>>15259523
What is the point of this? I never claim that women cannot violent. My point was more related to masculinity than everything.

>> No.15259552

>>15259533
See >>15259530

>> No.15259556

>>15257898
read the Bible, Christ is your ideal

>> No.15259558

>>15259533
The thing is, you and Butterfly are arguing from the idea that men are aggressive and warlike and women aren't, which is wrong.
Pacifism is an ideology, not a sex trait.

>> No.15259583

>>15259558
>The thing is, you and Butterfly are arguing from the idea that men are aggressive and warlike and women aren't, which is wrong. Pacifism is an ideology, not a sex trait.
True. Women can be as violent as men. However, there are a lot of "masculine" ideals in war. My point was more related to masculine "values". Pacifism is indeed an ideology. Both men and women can be pacificist. However, my point was trying to prove the problem of pacificism and how is not necesarily good.

>> No.15259593

>>15259416
Never implied that. It’s commonly thought that this is a feminine attribute. So when a boy doesn’t want to fight he’s called a sissy and pushed into being more aggressive and violent.
>>15259558
I’m not. I’m saying this is what these labels are for. Men were hunters turned warriors, women were gatherers and raised children, but the natural roles taken up have been distorted and enforce all kinds of bad behavior

>> No.15259605

>>15259150
kek

>> No.15259612

>>15259593
Hey butterfly refute this>>15259341
>natural roles taken up have been distorted and enforce all kinds of bad behavior
What is a bad behaviour to you?

>> No.15259654

>>15257898
OP you might like Anna Karenina. that'd help you the most.
you ought to read Anna Karenina, Hamlet, Macbeth, American Psycho and A Hero of Our Time. if you read all of those, you'll gain some perspectives on masculinity, good and bad. it'll help you decide for your own what aspects of masculinity are worth emulating.

>> No.15259655

>>15259593
>Men were hunters turned warriors, women were gatherers and raised children
I wish more people read sciencedaily enviro section more often.

As for the Archie Bunker idea of man as emotionless (or only acceptable emotion is anger) this is due to generations of misreadings of Aristotle.

Aristotle was fucking retarded to begin with.
Epictetus should've been the model instead, if we HAD to pick Greeks

>> No.15259673

>>15259593
>So when a boy doesn’t want to fight he’s called a sissy and pushed into being more aggressive and violent.
This is an especially stupid thing.
This is the exact opposite of the actual male ideal: SELF CONTROL.

>>15259612
>bad behaviour to you
See upcomment.
Unnecessary drama and inefficient activity like fighting to save face, or fighting battles you can't win instead of playing the long game and winning the war.
Machismo, as opposed to Masculinity.
A stupid caricature of actual masculinity.
Like pretending you have no emotion and flying into rages, vs actual SELF CONTROL and appropriate emotional life.

>> No.15259676

>>15259654
Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is basically an essay on manhood

>> No.15259684

>>15257898
I can tell you what books helped me with your exact same situation OP. Franklin’s Autobiography, Emerson’s essays, Walden, and, this may get some hate, but the art of manliness website has a few great articles genuinely taught me some great things that I think you would appreciate too.

>> No.15259692

>>15259612
>soldiers eat their enemies
>if we don’t have wars we become WEAK
You are ill in the head.
>>15259655
>I wish more people read sciencedaily enviro section more often.
How do you mean? It’s just a generalization used to describe why certain traits formed. What have you read?

>> No.15259696

>>15259673
>male ideal: SELF CONTROL.
It’s a fine trait to learn, but it isn’t a male trait

>> No.15259707

>>15259673
>See upcomment. Unnecessary drama and inefficient activity like fighting to save face, or fighting battles you can't win instead of playing the long game and winning the war.
I agree. My point was to use violence in specials occasion. Is not about becoming a nigger and uggaa bugga and killing anything in your way, but rather to fight possible threats, opposites ideologies and spread culture.
>Machismo, as opposed to Masculinity. A stupid caricature of actual masculinity. Like pretending you have no emotion and flying into rages, vs actual SELF CONTROL and appropriate emotional life.
Is not about rage. Is about fight for ideals and protect your people. Nature is indeed violent. Whether you liked or not. Using violence will be necessary in more than one occasion in life. Having self control is indeed good. However, sometimes you will need to fight no matter what.

>> No.15259727

>>15259692
>soldiers eat their enemies
>if we don’t have wars we become WEAK
>You are ill in the head.
Good strawman butteffly. You did not refute any of my points previously. Acting as pacificist in a violent world is stupid. Is not about eating soldiers you stupid dyke is about spreading your culture and ideals through force.

>> No.15259739

>>15259696
>It’s a fine trait to learn, but it isn’t a male trait
Neither is a female one retard.

>> No.15259744

>>15259727
Also, I find ironic that you call me mentally ill when you don't even know what that means. Violence is natural.

>> No.15259753

>>15259744
Now buttefly refute any of my points and stop using strawmans fucking dyke>>15259341

>> No.15259765

>>15259727
>Acting as pacificist in a violent world is stupid
This isn’t a “point” as I said nothing contrary.
Your comparison to animals (who everyone knows don’t live civilly) is why I bring up your unwitting advocacy of cannibalism.

>>15259739
Never said it was. You’re not getting my argument yet?

>> No.15259774

>>15259696
>>15259739
Precisely my actual point.
Sex Roles are very much arbitrary. It's a division of labor.
Traditions exist for a reason. Prescription, it has worked for all of history, so keep doing it.
But the core of Conservatism is PRAGMATIC.
We do it because it works, THEREFOR if it STOPS working, adjust it. Carefully.
This conservative pragmatism has been murdered by the twin idiocies of Progressivism, change for the sake of change, and Regressivism, total inertia into regression for the sake of nostalgia.

So far the argument I see for a "stronger male" is a weaker female so he looks stronger.
I say we need strong women and men should get good

>> No.15259785

>>15259744
>>15259727
>Spreading ideas through force
That's for if you absolutely fail to be effective with nonviolent methods.
If you need to slap somebody, you've already failed twice. Get smarter.

>> No.15259790

>>15259765
>This isn’t a “point” as I said nothing contrary. Your comparison to animals (who everyone knows don’t live civilly) is why I bring up your unwitting advocacy of cannibalism.
Kek, animals civil what stupid post. Comparing cannibalism to war is stupid. Now again refute my points again.

>> No.15259792

>>15259785
Nawp. He likes force. It’s Manly.

>> No.15259802

>>15259785
>That's for if you absolutely fail to be effective with nonviolent methods.
If you need to slap somebody, you've already failed twice. Get smarter.
You think most revolutions in history did not use violence? There are times that you will require the use of violence no matter what. I am not a commie, but you think their revolution would have been succesful is they acted like hippies? Violence will be requires in certain occassions no matter what.

>> No.15259805

>>15259792
Prentitious dyke. Refute my arguments. Force will necessary in certain occassions no matter what.

>> No.15259808

>>15259790
>(who everyone knows don’t live civilly)
Spend the next few hours learning about Eusocial animals in particular and animals in general.
There's even octopus cities.
The Beaver, ants, many many animals are civilized.
Ants have had agriculture for 60 million years.
Read a book, Conan.

>> No.15259822

>>15259802
You are getting confused because you're ESL.
No one is even trying to say that, and obviously your frustration and lack of practice has made both myself and Butterfly confused on your point.
I don't even think Butterfly is saying a world without war is possible.

Violence being necessary for Innovation is certainly a hypothesis, but there's never truly been a period of peace for comparison.

>> No.15259834

>>15259808
>Spend the next few hours learning about Eusocial animals in particular and animals in general. There's even octopus cities. The Beaver, ants, many many animals are civilized. Ants have had agriculture for 60 million years.
I think you misunderstood my point. Animals can be "civilized" in the way that form complex "societies". However, their morals are pretty much inexistant. Also, I find funny that you mention ants. Do you know ants go to war? They indeed have waged one of the biggest battle in the earth
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/01/160130-animals-insects-ants-war-chimpanzees-science/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7_e0CA_nhaE

>> No.15259837
File: 826 KB, 1363x1483, 471198_1_En_4_Fig2_HTML.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15259837

Termites who spend a year building an average mound of 3 metres have just built, in comparison to their size, the Empire State Building. Those who build taller mounds, at nearly 5 metres, have just built the Burj Khalifa in Dubai – 830 metres and 163 floors of vertigo – with no architect and no structural engineer.

>> No.15259844

>>15259834
Again, I'm not against war.

>> No.15259848

>>15259834
>However, their morals are pretty much inexistant
Darwinist Morals?

>> No.15259853

>>15259822
>You are getting confused because you're ESL. No one is even trying to say that, and obviously your frustration and lack of practice has made both myself and Butterfly confused on your point. I don't even think Butterfly is saying a world without war is possible.
Butterfly is implying that we humans being violent is bad. Muh war bad. Animals go to war as well >>15259834
>Violence being necessary for Innovation is certainly a hypothesis, but there's never truly been a period of peace for comparison.
Is logical. War makes people to think in ways to kill enemies. This leads to inovation. Many technologies used today have been created thanks to war.

>> No.15259860

>my opinion is X
>My opinion is Y
>Your opinion is bad because my opinion is Y
>No, it's a known fact that X is true
>There is nothing wrong with Y, it's natural!
You guys are imbeciles. Also, nice seeing you try to find essence in categorisations, really makes me nostalgic for 4th century B.C.

>> No.15259861

>>15259848
Well I think I can agree with that.

>> No.15259863

>>15259860
Is not necessarily that is good because is natural. War can be good and bad depending on the context.

>> No.15259866

>>15257898
>Meditations - Marcus Aurelius
>Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche
>Demian - Hermann Hesse (take your notes from Demian, not from Sinclair. Then at the end think about who Demian actually was in relation to Sinclair)

>> No.15259875

>>15259844
Butterfly thinks war is bad. She thinks that world without war would be ideal which is pretty much impossible.

>> No.15259888

>>15259837
Animals can create complex structures, I don't deny that. However, do you realize that they have been doing this for thousands of years. This is something in their instinct. We humans never build empire states in pre-history or something similar. Is thanks to the knowledge of thousands of years we are able to do that.

>> No.15259898

>>15259875
Ideals are impossible by definition.
The Ideal is the opposite of the Actual.
An ideal is only a model, if you try to actually achieve them, you end up with show dogs that have severe breathing problems.

>> No.15259905

>>15259888
What do you mean to say is the difference?
Human consciousness is special and better?
If anything, the climate situation is proof their method is better than ours.

>> No.15259907

Well is clear that butterfly did not refute any of my points. The only think you did was using strawmans fallacies and calling me "mentally ill". When ironically being a lesbian would be considered mentally ill before.
>inb4: love is not a diesease xdxdx
Loving the wrong people in the wrong is ironically mentally ill. You should fuck a cow because you love it?

>> No.15259926

>>15259898
>Ideals are impossible by definition. The Ideal is the opposite of the Actual. An ideal is only a model, if you try to actually achieve them, you end up with show dogs that have severe breathing problems.
I know that and our reality is that war can good and bad depending on the context. Is natural. However, is not bad or good. That depends on the circumstances. Violence will be required in some situations no matter what. If you can use intellect to solve a conflict then is fine. However, that would not be the case in some scenarios.

>> No.15259946

>>15259905
>What do you mean to say is the difference? Human consciousness is special and better? If anything, the climate situation is proof their method is better than ours.
1) Their bulding methods is not as effective as our. True they can create their structures. However, are these structures do not have same complexity as ours. Our is more resitant and has different functions than theirs.
2)The climate situation can be solved ironically through better technology. A good instance would using nuclear energy.
>inb4: muh nuclear energy bad
Anything can be bad depending on the circumstances. The method that I am taking would be using a fussion nuclear reactor. First it barely produce any waste and is quite efficient. If we find better technologies that replace our current ones then we can help the enviroment.
I recommend to watch these guys videos about this technology
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v
also check about thorium reactor

>> No.15259948

>>15259907
You are a tard

>> No.15259958

>>15259948
Again refute any of my arguments instead of insulting me? Where is the buttefly that claimed to be smarter than everybody? If you actually refute my arguments then I would stop discussing.

>> No.15259978

>I think its important to get back to true manhood as the concept is under attack these days from forces which want to make men effeminate and weak.

And I think you’ve been completely brainwashed by right wing grifters who sold you a made up ideal of what a man is and a non existent conspiracy to take it away from you.

>> No.15259990

>>15259978
Let people enjoy things

>> No.15259999

>>15259990
That’s not enjoying things, that’s wasting your life

>> No.15260001

>>15259978
>And I think you’ve been completely brainwashed by right wing grifters who sold you a made up ideal of what a man is and a non existent conspiracy to take it away from you.
That is not my point you idiot. Is about war/violence being good and bad. I am not even right wing. In our species war is associated with masculine values because males tend to make use of force more. Females can be violent too. Violence and war will required in certain situations. Tell me you think commies achieved their revolution thanks to peace? French? Latin America?

>> No.15260009

>>15259999
Using violence in an irrational way is wasting your life. Using it in a proper way is wise.

>> No.15260018

>>15259292

Someone who affirms their will without negating the will of others, to start.

>> No.15260030

>>15259999
It's their time to waste.
Heroin might be a waste of time to you and me, but some people are actually more happy as junkies in the streets.
One man's meat is another's poison as they say.

>> No.15260031

>>15260009
I’m more than willing to bet you have never served in a single military ever, nor have ever been in a single violent confrontation. You sound like the single biggest armchair general/streetfighter ever. Get laid

>> No.15260046

>>15257898
When I think about how I should respond in a relationship I reference Jesus and I'm not religious, I just think the guy is a pretty good authority on how get through life without anger and brooding

>> No.15260047

>>15260031
>I’m more than willing to bet you have never served in a single military ever, nor have ever been in a single violent confrontation. You sound like the single biggest armchair general/streetfighter ever. Get laid
What a great argument. You are right when you say I never serve in military. However, I grew in a very violent country. Some of my family members are in miltary and they are fighting for noble causes. Now that even matters? the fact that I am not a solider matter? You think that will make my argument less valid? If a person who is not a mathematician say 2+2=4 is wrong because he is not a profesional mathematician?

>> No.15260061

>>15260001
>war is associated with masculine values because males tend to make use of force more.
Is that because it's "natural" or because that's our culture? Is there any reason why it can't be the other way?
Why must aggression be male?
A mother protects her children with strength and aggression. This is well known.

>> No.15260067

>>15257898
Still waiting for butterfly to refute me.

>> No.15260082

>>15260067
All you’ve done is say nu-uh when I do.
>wars bring progress, computers...
I’d live in a far different and better world than your hell

>> No.15260084

>>15260047
>Now that even matters? the fact that I am not a solider matter? You think that will make my argument less valid?

Yes. You have no skin in the game. That invalidates everything you say by default

>> No.15260089

>>15260061
>Is that because it's "natural" or because that's our culture? Is there any reason why it can't be the other way? Why must aggression be male? A mother protects her children with strength and aggression. This is well known.
This more related to our species. Whether you liked or not males tend be more stronger than females in the physical aspect. There are obviously females that can be strong physically. However, males will tend to be stronger because evolution. Males were meant to be hunters and protectors of the "group". This something pre-historical. Males had the responsability to protect, in order to protect in those times you must be physically strong.

>> No.15260094

>>15260082
>All you’ve done is say nu-uh when I do.
I literally give you a lot of arguments. You did not refute anything.
>I’d live in a far different and better world than your hell
I doubt you would like to live a world without our current technology. You are ironically addicted to 4chan. Otherwise why would you be ex-mod in this shithole?

>> No.15260101

>>15260084
Ad hominen. Attacking a person instead of their arguments, typical.

>> No.15260115

>>15260101
That’s not an ad-hominem at all. Do you know what skin in the game is?

>> No.15260126

>>15260115
>Do you know what skin in the game is?
Not in this context, elaborate.

>> No.15260153

>>15260126
It means that you have a stake in the outcome of something you subscribe to others. In this case, it would mean that you’d be willing to actually participate in all the warfare you deem ‘manly’. Since you’re not willing to do this, you have no idea what war is actually like. All you have is a romanticized picture of war as some heroic effort that builds character and creates a ‘real man’. In reality, war is brutal, unfair and generally leaves its participants with crippling PTSD.

>> No.15260177

>>15260153
>It means that you have a stake in the outcome of something you subscribe to others. In this case, it would mean that you’d be willing to actually participate in all the warfare you deem ‘manly’. Since you’re not willing to do this, you have no idea what war is actually like.
I was born in the Middle East(Iraq). You think because I did not participated on combat that means I do not what is war? I guess civilians victims do not war. What a pity.
>Since you’re not willing to do this, you have no idea what war is actually like. All you have is a romanticized picture of war as some heroic effort that builds character and creates a ‘real man’. In reality, war is brutal, unfair and generally leaves its participants with crippling PTSD.
War can be indeed terrible. I know. Many of my family members die. However sacrifices will be needed. Also, how that invalidates my argument? First of all because I know a professional solider that does not mean I don't know the horror of war. I guess if you are not a professional mathematician you cannot say that 2+2=4 because you are not a mathematician.

>> No.15260180

>>15258905
Strong agree. Telemachus is an exemplary boy moving into manhood, and Odysseus is an exemplary man.

>> No.15260182

>>15260177
because I am not a professional solider*

>> No.15260187

>>15260177
>However sacrifices will be needed.

You first then, you Khalid ibn Walid wannabe

>> No.15260196

>>15260187
Sure. I could sacrifice myself. That would make my argument true?

>> No.15260235
File: 50 KB, 888x894, 1587264981127.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15260235

Since butterdyke did not give a single argument and only called me "ill" then I do not see point in continuing this thread. Have a nice night.

>> No.15260808

Cellini's autobiography

>> No.15261377

>>15257898
Read Evola. Metaphysics of War, Ride the Tiger, etc.

>> No.15261388

>>15257898
Way of Men by Jack Donovan. I wanted to hate it, but it's actually good.

>> No.15261467

>>15261388
Obligatory reminder that Jack Donovan is a flaming homosexual. He has some good points, but he's obviously... biased.

>> No.15261471

>>15257898
Legend of the strongest man Kurosawa

>> No.15261480

>>15258598
Not him but
>Physical and psychical strength
>Physical and psychical courage
>Great ability in the skills used in the aforementioned planes

>> No.15261619

>>15261467
One of the reasons I expected to hate it. He's really got to the core of masculinity, and his point regarding good at being a man vs. a good man is very useful. You have to mentally remove his fetish for gangs, though.

>> No.15262034

>>15258242
>Don Quixote by Cervantes
how? isn't he crazy?

>> No.15262044

ITT: trannies seething

>> No.15262072

You won't become a traditional man by reading about it. As soon as you've started to think about traditional manhood as a concept it's already too late for you. It's like Raskolnikov thinking about whether he's a great man like Napoleon and the likes, only to realize that if he was, he wouldn't be thinking about it this way.

>> No.15262390
File: 69 KB, 1004x600, 1587532046052.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15262390

>>15257898
Good morning /lit/izens. Is me again. I just wanted to check this thread a last time to see if butterdyke refuted any of my arguments. Alas, she didn't. Is more than evident that she was defeated in this conversation. Now I am officialy leaving. Have nice day.

>> No.15262412
File: 71 KB, 912x1024, 1575518440790.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15262412

>>15262390
>Butterfly? Not a fan of her. In fact I'd like to bash her skull in with a rock while raping her.