slywolf45 said:Wait, are you actually kidding me right now? Of course I think they aren't acting normally. I can't believe you're trying to lecture ME on this.😕
Quincy:
The diagnosis has to be something else entirely—some actual medical issue that impairs her ability to function in society, or some condition that genuinely harms her or those around her. I don't know the full details regarding this girl's situation, but the idea that she was admitted for treatment based on her homosexuality sounds incredibly suspicious to me.On top of that, there are mentions of drug addiction issues.
Supposedly, they fabricated the diagnosis just to have an excuse to lock her up. I don't know what's fact and what's fiction here, but it seems like a significant portion of it is true, considering those doctors have been fired and the hospital director has been ousted.
(I'm referring to Anna from the start of the thread)
This is exactly my point. If they aren't considered mentally ill, then the entire argument about homosexuals being sent to asylums because of their orientation falls apart. Unstable parents would have had her committed to an asylum, simply because she was left-handed or because of what Milan Vidov predicted.
Quincy:
Supposedly, they planted that on her just to flag her for something. I am unsure what can be verified as fact, but it seems certain that much of this is true if doctors are being laid off and the hospital director has been ousted.
(I am referring to the one mentioned at the start of the thread, Anna.)
I am referring back to the story mentioned at the start of this thread. Unfortunately, I cannot provide more specific details regarding exactly what transpired or the reasons behind those personnel changes, as I simply lack that information. The media likely covered the situation, but I don't really follow the news much myself. 😬 I find it highly doubtful that her sexual orientation is the primary factor here. As I previously noted, we must consider the legal implications. It also strikes me as suspicious that she spent five years institutionalized without any mention of efforts from family or friends to get her out. Quoting: Quincy:
My parents and sisters haven't tried to reach out, nor do I want them to. As far as I'm concerned, they no longer exist. A few months ago, my aunt dealt with some unpleasantness involving my former stepfather; he threatened her because she took my side, telling her he only has two daughters, not three. My extended family remains okay. They still support me.
Reading this article, it seems like only lesbian advocacy groups have even attempted to take action on her behalf, which makes the whole narrative feel incredibly one-sided. Naturally, the coverage is being filtered solely through the lens of her sexual orientation. How is it possible that she didn't have anyone closer—members of LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, family, friends, or even neighbors—who would have stepped up to demand her release if she were placed in a mental health facility while perfectly sane?
slywolf45 said:No, we aren't talking about minor punishments here—things like being grounded for three days or losing computer privileges because you messed up. We are talking about the terrifying reality of parents attempting to institutionalize their children. Because of their sexual orientation. And that is specifically what this thread is addressing. Sure, there are certainly enough unstable parents out there who would commit their children to institutions for various other reasons, but that isn't the focus here. Just as there are parents who resort to physical violence or sexual abuse, those are separate issues. This discussion is about this specific context.
So, if they committed her for other reasons, they would be crazy. Here, however, we are trying to discuss the specific motives behind her placement. We are discussing it as if it were a rational, sane decision made by healthy people, motivated solely by the knowledge of her homosexual orientation. As if everything would be acceptable if she weren't gay, or if her parents held different views on homosexuality.
I predict this discussion will hit a landmine. Homosexuality is not an illness, and you cannot be sent to a psychiatric ward with such a diagnosis, even under a corrupt system, due to potential legal repercussions. The diagnosis would have to be something else—some medical condition that impairs a person's ability to function in society, or some state that harms the girl or those around her. I am not fully briefed on this girl's story, but it sounds highly suspicious that she was accepted for treatment based on homosexuality. Furthermore, there are mentions of drug addiction reports. Can we somehow confirm that everything was fine with the girl and her parents otherwise, and that she was actually sent and admitted for treatment specifically because of her homosexuality, rather than something else?
slywolf45 said:You're oversimplifying the whole situation, Saš.
The crux of the matter here is that these parents are essentially looking for "treatment" specifically because of someone's sexual orientation. This isn't some teenager getting grounded for being a rebel at high school or getting caught smoking weed because they were hanging out with the wrong crowd.
That isn't the point; her orientation is merely incidental. The story highlights the inhumanity of parents toward their own child, and the cruelty of social institutions. It is entirely possible to force a healthy individual into "treatment," where they remain trapped within an institution without any way to leave or call for help. They can be subjected to torture or even murder, with the truth hidden behind closed doors. I know of cases far worse than this one, and there is much to discuss. Given the massive elephant in the room, it feels pointless to focus on the girl being gay just to push a narrative about how homosexuals are disenfranchised or stigmatized.
I would like to build upon what Endymion stated on the previous page regarding the forum rules. A crime is simply whatever the law defines as such—and under American law, raping rapists, killing murderers, or imprisoning kidnappers is considered a crime. Our right to take such actions has been stripped away by legislation, categorizing those acts as offenses. This isn't because they are inherently criminal, but because the state demands to be the sole authority for justice within its borders; without that monopoly, its power would vanish. In different eras or different realms, different laws apply, if any exist at all. Whether something is a crime in a true moral, practical, or philosophical sense is an answer you won't find in any legal code. The law is merely our pale attempt to translate principles of humanity, morality, and dignity into common words. The second vital point is the punishment for the offender. While it is effectively a penalty, its purpose is not retribution, but prevention. It exists to reduce or prevent future crimes by the perpetrator and those similar to them. It is not an ideal solution, but it is the one we currently possess. And like any solution that addresses a problem, it involves infringing upon the offender's human rights—meaning, in some measure, it is also a crime. If we are going to discuss crime seriously, we should establish a definition so we are all speaking the same language. It seems to me that Endymion holds a somewhat rigid preconception of crime, viewing it as an act where the "who" and "why" don't matter, only the "how." If we limit ourselves to that view, I fear we lose the broader context, specifically the issue of prevention—protecting individuals from criminals, the truly wicked ones. Without protection, there is no value in such a law; instead of protecting us, it would punish us for defending ourselves.🤷 As for everything else, you were all rightfully put in your place; you are truly being unpleasant.😁 However, I believe it is neither unusual nor necessarily bad to harbor such criminal thoughts amidst your self-righteous fury. As long as you do not act upon them.🙂
Intolerance toward specific racial or social groups doesn't stem from ignorance. It isn't even about prejudice. Some people simply harbor an excess of hatred within themselves; they have to direct it outward just to keep from being consumed by it. Why is there so much hate? Because they are fools. It is easier to hate than to accept reality and deal with it. Hatred provides a sense of purpose, direction, and justification. It inflates the ego without any actual merit, while stripping away the value of others—making the hater feel righteous, worthy, divine, and unshakable. And what is foolish about that? Everything. 😁
Sarah Wood8 said:So, who ends up being the predator in that scenario? A professional assailant? Can I apply for that job? Where do I go to get my License to fuck?
Excellently put; that is precisely the point. A convicted rapist grants that "license" by violating an innocent person. The state acknowledges this by stripping away his own right to protection from sexual assault—he effectively renounced that right through his crime. If you can make money doing that, then become a professional rapist. Many innocent victims lack the capacity, or simply refuse, to soil their hands and consciences by taking justice into their own hands against their abusers. But that is why professional rapists exist—individuals who read the tabloids and are willing to make a living delivering justice. You offer the victim, or any interested party, a service of retribution for a set fee. Of course, you could face legal consequences, but if you have negotiated and executed the violation of those human rights which the individual no longer possesses (as they forfeited them and the court affirmed it), then you would be granted amnesty. So, become a professional rapist if you wish. Just ensure you don't target the innocent.
ambermason16, please explain how you managed to go from 330 lbs to standing in the middle of Times Square crying for your mother. 😁 I know you're lying, but it is pleasant to listen to you. 🙂
By the way, since we are discussing Hammurabi's Code, I will use my off-topic credits to ramble about my own utopia: For certain crimes, I would publish the verdict in national newspapers and strip the convict of the right to human rights protections, which they violated through their crime. This means if someone is convicted of rape, that becomes public record. If someone is then raped, they will be tried for it, but an amnesty would be applied during sentencing—because the assault was committed against a person who forfeited their right to protection by committing an act that violates the legal protections of others.
white panties. What are your thoughts on, say, the massacre in Rwanda back in 2004? Here is a random link regarding that topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbgPkxOSmDE In a small African nation, one million people were killed over just four months, mostly by mobs and machetes. Neighbors turned on neighbors. It happened because there was a widespread belief that it was a good idea. This genocide against the Tutsi mirrors the Holocaust carried out by the Nazis across Europe using industrial methods; anyone could try to ignore the results of the Rwandan genocide, yet they remain undeniable. Whether we discuss Srebrenica, the expansionist policies of the Roman Empire, the conquistadors, the Crusaders, North Korea, Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, Turkish crimes against Armenians, the genocide of Native Americans, or various regimes in Africa, Latin America, and beyond... the list is endless. Or consider recent history, when we believed it was acceptable to kill, torture, and displace fellow citizens based on their nationality or political views. Look at the poems from that era: http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=Zr8o...eature=related Ultimately, what do we truly know about the monsters living among us, demonstrating their sadism toward their own families behind closed doors, just steps away from us? Our understanding is very limited. It is simply not popular to speak or think about such things. It is easier to remain silent and believe in inherent human goodness.
One doesn't need a traumatic upbringing or a history of monsters in the family to act this way in today's climate. It is enough that they simply believe it is a good idea. In that movie, everyone thinks kicking a cat is a great idea and finds it entertaining. Many terrible things have happened and continue to happen. We just choose not to think about them, and when we finally encounter them, we wonder how it was even possible. We lack answers, yet we persist in the belief that monsters are mere exceptions—something inhuman, caused by faulty genes or sadistic parents. We cling to the idea that people don't inherently possess such darkness. Unfortunately, "human nature" is a meaningless concept. A person can become anything they choose—an angel or a monster—or shift their beliefs and behaviors whenever circumstances change. There is no foolproof way to predict or prevent monsters, because anyone can become one. All we can do is make it harder through proper upbringing and fostering self-awareness and empathy. But there is a downside: we remain shocked by monsters and have no clue how to handle them. We lose our insight, which robs us of the ability to understand, foresee, and prevent situations where the inner monster surfaces. When it happens, we usually just hear: "But he was such a quiet, polite young man; he's been my neighbor my whole life and never caused trouble. I have no idea what happened to him 🤷"
Sandra Parker3 said:Are you actually being serious right now? You aren't being critical because you have some grand agenda; you're just reacting because your gut is telling you something feels off.
Then again... you just sort of sense when you're ready to push forward. At least that's how it works for me. I don't really bother checking off a list of requirements to decide if I'm done. 🤷 What does an apology even mean anymore? You see people handing them out like candy every five seconds, almost like they're just filler words to smooth things over, but where’s the actual credibility? It’s all about what happens after the words are spoken. Words carry weight, sure, but on their own? They don't amount to much of anything.
Guilt? Not really.
Quincy:
I know exactly what I’m doing and exactly how I could fix it, but I just can't bring myself to actually change anything. It's frustratingly predictable. I've got no excuses, and there isn't a damn thing I can do to change it.
You just can't. The only thing you can actually do is just admit that you messed up. It’s tough, but there isn't any other way to play it.
No, it is just that I rarely take things that deeply to heart. I understand your perspective when your intuition tells you something is off, and I respect that, but I operate differently. I approach these matters very rationally and do not allow anger or any other negative emotion to dictate my actions. I pause, I cool down, and if necessary, I distance myself from the person until I can review the situation with a clear head. If my logic aligns with my anger, then I act "angrily," as I previously described. That only happens when I conclude that the person acted out of malice or total disregard for others. Otherwise, if I am merely upset, I wait for the feeling to pass and do not make a scene. I agree with everything you said regarding credibility, but I still insist on following certain social formalities. It is easier for me to navigate life that way, and it means something to me when someone makes the effort to follow those norms. There doesn't necessarily have to be deep sincerity behind it, but following that form teaches us politeness, which is essentially caring for others. For instance, if I hurt someone through carelessness, I say "I'm sorry." Even if it is just an empty phrase, if you repeat it a million times, you learn to be careful—and you learn that you have to ask for forgiveness every time you slip up, so it becomes more efficient to just be careful. Eventually, it becomes second nature. You start feeling good when you are mindful, and ultimately, whether it is sincere or not, you develop a sense of care for others.
Paul Morales3 said:I meant it more indirectly. Forgiving yourself for not being stronger in that moment—for letting the harassment happen or for how you carried yourself, simply because you didn't have any other choice at the time. It’s less about "forgiveness" and more about deciding that next time, I'll show myself a little more grace.
I see. That makes sense in the context of a child. It is natural for children to believe they are at fault when someone close to them treats them poorly. A mature adult should have a much clearer understanding of where the blame actually lies. Furthermore, an adult's conclusion after enduring such treatment wouldn't be "I'll love myself more next time," but rather, "I'll be smarter next time."
Sandra Parker3 said:Yeah, but I wasn't talking about those kinds of situations I actually think in the scenario you're describing, "forgiveness" isn't even the right word. A child doesn't need to forgive themselves; they just need to assign accountability to the right people.
But I guess it all comes down to how you define the words...
I agree that 3 and 4 often aren't possible, especially that guarantee part, and personally, an apology (step 2) doesn't mean much to me... 🤔 so out of your list, only step 1 matters to me, provided there's a real explanation behind it—you know, the "why" and "how."
As for the OP, I don't get the whole concept of forgiving ourselves when someone else has wronged us. 🤷
Nor do I 🤷
If someone offers an apology, it means they feel remorse for their actions. It shows that admitting a mistake isn't just empty words. If they simply admit they were wrong without apologizing, it might imply, "I'm sorry I got caught." A lack of apology also suggests a lack of concern for those hurt. As for a "guarantee," one could consider a person's word, assuming they value their own honor. In short, when I hold a grudge, I don't forgive without the full package—everything listed above. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the grievance?
Spiritual peace isn't granted for free; it comes from the realization that you did what was necessary.
Regarding my own view on forgiveness, someone who has committed a serious offense must:
1. Acknowledge their mistake. 2. Offer a sincere apology for the harm caused. 3. Make restitution to those affected. 4. Provide an assurance that it won't happen again.
Steps 3 and 4 aren't always feasible, but steps 1 and 2 are within reach. Once a person fulfills these—doing everything they possibly can—they may receive genuine forgiveness. Otherwise, forgiveness is merely amnesty, which is just giving someone permission to repeat their wrongdoing.
As for the original poster, I don't quite follow the logic regarding forgiving oneself when someone else has wronged us. 🤷
I echo the praise. Well done, Gary James88. 👍 Regarding the question, I couldn't say. Out of all the possible warnings or bans, I have only ever received one minor infraction. It was a bit of a shock when I noticed it. My innocence is gone forever. 😁
feralhound55, men are quite straightforward, especially when compared to your mindset if his responses to this thread are any indication. For instance, a man will attempt to view a relationship with you objectively, even if it isn't easy for him. To illustrate the scale: a connection might evolve from casual dating into a relationship that breaks apart after, say, three months. During that window, a man might wonder "what exactly are we?" during moments of crisis or insecurity—certainly at least twice, once while dating and again before the breakup. You, however, will question the nature of the relationship with every single gesture, every text, every ambiguity, and even every clear statement. Before sex, after sex, before that specific call he owes you, while waiting for the call, while stressing about waiting for the call, while stressing about the stress of waiting for the call, during the call itself, after the call, and so on.😵 From a male perspective, I would argue that ambiguity exists primarily in a woman's mind. Colorka explained the principle of when a man's messages are truly ambiguous. Compared to the complexity of your world, such instances are extremely rare.
Jeffrey Sanchez7 said:It feels like you're falling back into that small-minded way of thinking again. Angel Investors are typically established individuals who genuinely want to lift others up and invest in new ideas out of goodwill. They aren't just throwing money at things; they are investing their years of high-level consulting expertise and hard-earned wisdom.
At the end of the day, some people are driven by a desire to build up the community, while others are just looking at the bottom line.
Angel Investors are simply one type of investor. Some want to help, just like there are those looking to rob you blind. Regardless, both groups operate based on economic logic; even "goodwill" is ultimately tied to the desire for profit. They don't invest in mere ideas; they invest in motivated teams backed by solid business plans. Besides, you can hear endless ideas at any local bar, including pitches on how to run the country better than Ivo Sanders. Whether they are good or bad, those ideas are only worth something to the people who own them.
Zero dollars. Unfortunately, an idea alone isn't worth a cent in terms of investment. You see people everywhere walking around with unfulfilled ideas. If they reached out and asked, someone might toss them a couple of bucks just so they could grab a burger. Not expecting to see those two dollars ever again.
I don't believe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else has the power to pivot the financial landscape at this point. Everything has spiraled far beyond control. The global market is drowning in liquidity tied up in junk assets and high-risk loans, all while the actual value of that money evaporates. As the dollar loses its strength, things will only deteriorate further. For instance, the Federal Reserve essentially dumped $200 billion just to shift the burden of the subprime sector onto everyone else. You see the same pattern in Europe—greedy financiers pocket the profits, and when they fail, they somehow conjure bailouts out of thin air. We’ll soon see what happens when the music stops. Many will find themselves without a seat at the table. We might witness a rally, perhaps even several, but that is nothing more than wishful thinking. In the coming years, we should prepare for extremely cheap stocks.
I find myself equally captivated by the image of a nude violinist. I am not sure about you, but to me, there is an inherent sense of culture and sophistication in that imagery—it creates such a palpable tension. It is far more elevated than just seeing a naked woman who, once she starts talking, sounds like she’s herding sheep in the Midwest. "What are you looking at?" It simply isn't the same experience, is it?