Posts by Sam Martinez9

hiddeneagle98 said:I don't think she’s picking out some noble little rationalization just to impress whoever she's talking to; rather, I think her conscious mind genuinely believes that's the truth. It’s like that guy who walked around with a brain injury thinking he was handed a shovel to clean up bird droppings—he actually believed it. When someone views themselves as a good person (which, let's face it, most of us love to believe), their conscious mind will "fill in the blanks" based on that self-image.

To be honest, I find it hard to believe anyone can be absolutely certain about the specific reason why they aren't going to take their own life. For most people, it's less about a specific reason and more that they simply cannot bring themselves to do it, regardless of the circumstances. So, how can you be sure it's because of one specific reason, and that if that reason vanished, you'd suddenly decide to end it? If you ask me, our conscious awareness doesn't have a clear enough window into those deep-seated psychological processes to articulate the exact causes and motives. Instead, the conscious half just interprets raw feelings and fills in the gaps with whatever narrative makes sense at the time.

She nearly went through with it. About three weeks after her son's funeral, she made the decision. It was simple and stark: when she weighed the crushing agony of losing her child against any potential future joys life might offer, she concluded that living simply wasn't worth the effort.

However, her daughter—who lives separately but talks to her on the phone every single day—picked up on something in their conversation. She said the magic words: "I need my mother alive." After hearing that, my friend decided not to go through with it.

She still feels that life isn't worth living, but since her other child still needs her, she keeps going.

I know, I know... you can argue this is just her story, that she was just planning it all along, blah, blah, blah...

Quote:>

ruggedbadger2 says: @Sam Martinez9 One can still hold onto hope even after losing a child—perhaps the hope of a reunion in heaven, for instance. Without that kind of hope in such a dark situation, people often lose their grip on reality or end up taking their own lives. >

That’s a consolation, not really hope.

It is rare for a parent to kill their own child, but we much more frequently see cases where parents lose a child to a car accident or an illness. Even then, it's rare for those individuals to seek an exit through suicide.

I have a friend who lost her son about three years ago, and she tells me the pain feels just as sharp as it did on day one. She doesn't find any real solace in anything. However, she has a daughter who needs her, and so she keeps going, enduring the grief of her lost son just to be there for her.

ruggedbadger2 said:The child is going to suffer regardless, even if they stay alive. No matter how you look at it, there isn’t a way to spin this into something beneficial for them. It really just comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. I guess that depends entirely on how much a parent prioritizes their kid's safety and what that means to them personally. It's an individual thing. Obviously, not everyone in that situation is going to kill their child.

Either way, every single option leads to some kind of end to the suffering. Unless someone is an extreme sadist, nobody is going to start targeting that kid just to make things worse—and even then, a sadist would only do it for their own twisted pleasure.

The pain will still be there, but it might be more manageable. As long as the child is alive, there is at least the possibility of recovery, which offers a reprieve from the suffering for both parent and child. Hope is a powerful motivator and a massive source of comfort.

However, once death occurs, all hope vanishes along with it, leaving nothing behind but pure grief and the agony of losing a child.

ruggedbadger2 said:That would fall under category B, which is essentially eliminating dissatisfaction. People tend to be happy when their kids are happy, but this is one of those scenarios where both choices—killing the child or letting them live—are pretty much equally horrific for a parent. I guess you could say a parent who chooses to kill is basically deciding to end their child's suffering.

Precisely. However, doing so only serves to amplify their own agony. While the child's suffering might cease, the parent is left to endure an immense, lifelong burden of grief.

ruggedbadger2 said:Can you actually give me an example of a goal that doesn't lead to satisfaction? I guess I can't think of any human activity that isn't either chasing pleasure or trying to eliminate discomfort (like nirvana, euthanasia, or suicide).

Killing one's own child.

Picture this: you have a five-year-old who is suffering from an incurable disease, enduring agonizing pain.

To end that suffering, you take their life.

If I were ever forced into such a position, the rest of my life would be defined by profound misery, stemming from at least two distinct sources: the loss of my child, and the weight of having been the one to end their life.

steeleagle77 said:Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own delusions 🤣 but I couldn't help noticing your post implies people are rational actors who weigh every decision through scientific scrutiny.
Look, even we professionals—psychologists and psychiatrists alike—are riddled with cognitive biases. No one is immune. Rationality is the exception, not the rule. Humans act on instinct, emotion, and affect... rationality is just a footnote.
Why? Simply put, evolution favors cognitive biases because they serve the interests of selfish genes. These biases persist as long as the benefit outweighs the cost. For instance, believing you are superior to others is actually quite useful; it drives you to climb the social ladder, which ultimately benefits your genetic legacy...

I'm with you there. But I think that’s exactly where our responsibility lies. Our job is to learn how to master ourselves—to gain control over our physical responses, our emotions, and our thought patterns.

It’s about figuring out who we really are, what makes us tick, and why we behave the way we do, so we can eventually take the reins of our own actions.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Hedonism just isn't part of the human blueprint. No actual human being is wired to chase some ultimate, static state of pure pleasure. You see this reflected in psychoanalysis too. It’s similar to that old debate about whether you’d rather have the destination or the journey itself. Hedonism doesn't offer any real progress for humanity. I don't see any way to leverage it to build a community or true social cohesion. To me, hedonism feels incredibly selfish—it sits right at the bottom tier of human needs. Through his experiment, Nozick proved that people aren't just looking for a hit of dopamine; they want to actually live through the process. If we were all plugged into a machine that pumped out nothing but bliss, we’d get the sensation of satisfaction without anything else. And because we wouldn't be aware of what reality actually looks like, we'd be trapped in a bubble... which is the last thing any of us really wants.
Thanks, but I'll pass on the machine. 🙂

I find myself agreeing with your assessment. Pleasure isn't an end in itself; the most profound satisfaction often comes from victory. And in order to win, one must engage in conflict. I am not speaking of literal warfare, of course, but rather the metaphorical struggles we face—the battle for knowledge, the grit required to solve a complex problem, or the discipline needed to build something meaningful.

The essence lies in the fact that through such struggles, a person transforms both their environment and their own character. Pure hedonism facilitates no change; it merely preserves the status quo for both the world and the individual. Yet, the fundamental law of our existence is that everything is in constant flux.

That said, there are clearly two types of people: the active and the passive. Those on the passive side would likely disagree with my perspective; they seem most content when they can bypass effort and hardship entirely. For them, simply being fed, clothed, and catered to is enough.

Personally, I think I would die of boredom.

Blue-collar workers can absolutely be right-wingers.

The point is, a specific social class doesn't necessarily need its own dedicated political party; it’s enough if they simply cast their votes for whichever party champions an ideology that resonates with them.

Take the retiree vote in America, for example. Seniors have their own interest groups—actually, there are several different organizations representing them—and if retirees only ever voted for parties specifically catering to their demographic, those niche groups would hold all the power.

But we know that isn't how reality works; generally speaking, retirees tend to vote for the Republican Party.

When it comes to the working class, it's a similar story. Whether here in the States or elsewhere, laborers typically lean toward the right and support conservative ideas.

For instance, a large portion of the workforce believes we should tighten borders regarding foreign labor because they fear for their own job security.

While that logic is fundamentally flawed—since the influx of foreign workers actually creates a diametrically opposite effect by opening up new opportunities for the domestic population—the sentiment remains.

Workers ought to remember that everyone occupies multiple roles simultaneously; they aren't just employees, they are also consumers.

It might seem to serve their interests as workers to have goods manufactured domestically so they can secure more jobs, but as consumers, that's rarely in their best interest. If everything were produced locally, the cost of production would include their own higher wages, which means that, as buyers, they would find everything prohibitively expensive.

Michelle Davis15 said:No, honestly, it's just the law of the jungle, and it's been ruling the world since day one. The real issue is how we’re raised; we’re taught from childhood that people are inherently good and honest, and that being virtuous is the only way to be. But by the time someone raised that way finally realizes how the world actually works, they've usually spent years getting stepped on, losing countless opportunities to actually compete on a level playing field.

The problem is that most of us just can't stomach the brutal reality, so we lie to ourselves to our own detriment. The Church played a massive role in this, constantly hammering away at our sense of guilt.

The law of the strongest was perfectly sufficient back when a man could just bash someone over the head to take his partner or his food.

However, in a society as complex as modern civilization, survival of the fittest alone just doesn't cut it anymore.

Think about electricity, water systems, highways, the internet, commerce, travel... all these essential services require cooperation.

It all comes down to specialization and cooperation.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Correct, fair, even... those all sound similar, but they aren't the same thing.

Take how we toss food while people are starving—we make all this stuff just to dump it in a trash can after grocery shopping... plus all the plastic waste.

The animal world is nothing but a fight for territory—no ethics, just teeth, beaks, claws, and jaws. Are we animals, or are we descendants of God?

And where does morality come from if not religion? You see kids getting indoctrinated starting in elementary school.

Those elites get rich off wars—literally hundreds of people die. (Makes you feel like the conspiracy theories actually make sense)

Why settle for an "either-or" scenario? Why couldn't it be both?

Thomas Nelson25 said:People have been fighting over "fair" distribution since the dawn of time...
(I mean, look at the intro to *2001: A Space Odyssey*—if evolution is real, then all of this carries even more weight... those big questions without answers... if you want to say the world basically acts according to human nature, statistically speaking.)

Basically, in the animal kingdom, grabbing what you can is just how it works.

Human morality, which was largely shaped by religion, is a huge factor here. Humanists usually lean on reason or some kind of logic regarding non-violence—if I'm reading their version of humanity correctly—but that might be a letdown for folks clinging to the hope of a God who acts as judge... someone more powerful and clever, operating without ethical constraints, making it easier to navigate.

War burns through weapons and energy and whatnot, which means the big manufacturers end up winning... so, weirdly enough, there’s a profit motive behind it too, even if it looks totally absurd.

I misspoke earlier; I meant equitable, not uniform.

In the wild, theft isn't really a thing. Animals might fight over food when they're starving, but a small creature isn't going to go out of its way to rob someone else.

I wouldn't agree with the idea that human morality was programmed by religion.

Of course, certain people get incredibly rich from war. However, when you look at the big picture, war is a net loss for both the victors and the defeated.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Let's say technology finally unlocks a whole new economy—where resources and energy just aren't an issue anymore. Think along the lines of that Star Trek model.

We'd still probably need some kind of global government, though I don't see it being a democracy at the top level—maybe we keep the democratic stuff for local governance instead.

As for the "spiritual awakening" or whatever you all call this "shift in consciousness"... that’s gonna take generations. It's a slow burn. That said, there's definitely been a trend moving in that direction since the late 70s. We're nowhere near a critical mass for massive societal shifts, but it's enough to keep things relatively peaceful for now.

But look, we both know how it goes—one major crisis hits and people revert back to animals. It all comes down to survival.

If you look at the total wealth held by humanity today, there is actually enough to go around for everyone. The issue isn't scarcity; it's the distribution. We have a situation where the top 1% of people in America hold more than the bottom 90% combined.

The core of the problem lies elsewhere—it’s pure greed. It’s this compulsive need to hoard. I often think of it like a squirrel frantically stuffing hazelnuts into a hole for a winter it won't survive. The difference is that most people—and I don't just mean the ultra-wealthy, but a huge portion of the population—are sitting on piles of stuff they don't need and will never use. And when the end comes, they certainly can't take any of those gadgets or luxury cars with them.

Then, you factor in war. War doesn't create wealth; it systematically destroys it. It’s pure devastation. You don't get back the homes leveled by a missile strike. During wartime, everything else just grinds to a halt; nothing is being built, nothing is being improved... it's all just stagnation and loss.

So, we are looking at two fundamentally irrational human behaviors.

Yet, for some reason, most people don't see anything controversial about it.

David Vaughn75 said:But that’s exactly where we hit the wall.

See, while he's sitting there scrolling through his phone, the soldiers from his own country are out there doing the dirty work—fighting wars and killing people—and he couldn't care less. It doesn't even register.

You talk about needing "awareness," like if people actually gave a damn, they'd use their votes to kick out the warmongers and the agitators at the ballot box. But that? That just isn't happening. If anything, it's the opposite. Young people today are becoming more and more disconnected from politics. It’s all about chasing a paycheck and finding a date—that's pretty much the entire extent of their worldview.

Responsibility is an individual matter.

Someone holding a smartphone shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of a soldier, regardless of whether that soldier belongs to their own nation or a foreign one.

The responsibility lies with the soldier. The soldier is the one holding the rifle, operating the tank, or firing the mortar...

We aren't omnipotent; we can only do what is within our power. That is where our true responsibility lies—asking ourselves if we have done everything possible. Take yourself, for instance. Suppose you despise certain officials in Washington. Can you personally do anything to remove a Secretary you disagree with? And even if you could, how would you ensure someone just as bad doesn't simply slide into that seat under a different name?

Perhaps young people have simply realized that they are powerless to change the system.

That said, the burden of taking action arguably falls more heavily on the older generation. Older citizens understand the levers of power and know they have the agency to pull them. The youth are still just learning the ropes and trying to find their footing in society.

David Vaughn75 said:Yeah, well—that’s not happening anytime soon.

We’ve basically turned into this massive, shallow selfie-obsessed civilization that spends all day liking photos of random cats on Facebook while completely ignoring the fact that people's entire lives are being torn apart halfway across the globe—sometimes even because of their own country. Someone out there is losing their home, their family, everything they own, and we just sit here scrolling, totally unbothered, as long as the chaos isn't knocking on our own front door.

I find myself in complete agreement here. This whole "selfie civilization" we’ve drifted into is deeply unsettling. It breeds a pervasive sense of superficiality and a blatant disregard for genuine connection. Everything is becoming a performance rather than an experience.

Look, at the end of the day, I’d much rather see them staring at their smartphone screens than swinging machetes. It’s a simple trade-off: I'll take a generation obsessed with taking selfies over one that’s busy decapitating people any day of the week.

Of course they will.

But when?

Only once human consciousness evolves to a certain point.

First, we have to realize that war inflicts irreparable damage on everyone involved—and I use the term *winners* loosely here, because there are no winners in a conflict; the only true victors are death and destruction itself.

Once we reach that stage of development, people stop fighting out of pure selfishness. They restrain themselves from violence and opt for peaceful resolutions simply to avoid hurting their own interests.

The next level of evolution is understanding that there isn't actually anyone to fight against. There are no "enemies." There are just different people—people who speak different languages, think differently, or perhaps even think incorrectly.

But honestly, it’s better to let people be wrong than to try and force them toward "correctness" through warfare and bloodshed. If you kill a man's child, you can bet he won't be thinking "rationally" anymore; the sheer agony of that loss leaves no room for logic.

At the end of the day, all wars are driven by material motives; essentially, every war is just a glorified form of robbery.

Everyone loses in a war, both in ways we can measure and ways we cannot (for instance, the immeasurable loss of a child whose potential might have led to a breakthrough benefiting all of humanity).

There is enough for everyone on this planet. People who obsessively hoard material goods fail to realize they are wasting their limited time on trivialities. You can only sleep in one bed at a time, sit in one chair... having a surplus of stuff doesn't enrich a person; quite the opposite, the possessions end up owning the person. Stuff owns you.

True, though even if we assume everyone possesses a spiritual core, there’s no reason to believe we’re all operating at the same level. It’s my belief that an individual should actively strive to cultivate their own spiritual depth.

How does one go about it? Through continuous learning, deep reflection, and genuine discovery...

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Fair point, but that sounds more like describing basic human processes. Those can happen regardless of whether someone is spiritually grounded or not. Both a deeply spiritual person and someone who hasn't developed that side of themselves can engage in those activities—but there's still a massive difference in how they approach them.

That’s a much narrower way of looking at and defining spirituality.

If we go by that logic, most people wouldn't be considered spiritual at all; instead, "spiritual" would only apply to the select few who have hit enlightenment or achieved a higher state through specific means, like meditation or disciplined practice.

Meanwhile, according to hollowpuma762, even animals possess spirituality. In that sense, his definition ends up being even broader than my own.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:What you're listing sounds more like the realm of artistic expression, and a person doesn't necessarily have to be "spiritual" to engage in that.

It’s true that spiritual people are often drawn to the arts, but that’s just a conventional connection. There are plenty of deeply spiritual people with highly developed spirits who might not participate in anything within your specific definition of "spirituality."

To me, spirituality is simply a highly developed human nature. It isn't just about having a certain talent or an affinity for something, nor is it split into whether someone is a believer in God or an atheist.

When I talk about human nature, I mean those qualities that make us human—qualities that are often suppressed in most people by dominant social forces. These external pressures act as a force stronger than individual will, causing people to stick to certain habits out of ignorance rather than following the internal principles that would actually help their human nature flourish.

So, in both cases—whether it's someone pursuing art without living a spiritual life, or someone whose deep spirituality manifests as what looks like mere talent to the average person—we are talking about human nature. In the first case, usually only one segment is fulfilled while much else is neglected. In the second, there is a developed spirit that presents itself to others as a gift, much like the great minds throughout history—be they philosophers, theologians, poets, painters, scientists, or simply enlightened souls who lived before we started putting labels on everything.

Spirituality definitely involves creativity, but not just in the traditional sense. It’s much broader. It’s an internal quality: knowledge, understanding, capability, and a heightened awareness that lives in harmony with oneself, others, and the natural world. It's a functional state that is free from systematic negative thoughts and toxic emotions.

Someone plagued by compulsive behaviors might be a respected artist, but they’ll struggle to be a truly spiritual person because they haven't actually realized or manifested their spirituality.

Anyway, none of this is going to show up in this PDF; this kind of stuff belongs in a different kind of "artistic PDF." 🙂

You asked me what spirituality means to me.

I already told you—that falls entirely within the realm of the human spirit.

For instance, I laid out several different facets of the human spirit. I’m honestly not quite sure why you’ve fixated on art specifically; that is merely one expression of our inner life. At no point did I suggest that spirituality and art were one and the same.

Beyond that, I also took the liberty of listing several other pursuits of the human spirit.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:So, what does spirituality look like to you? How does it actually show up in people?

To my mind, spirituality is simply the active expression of the human spirit. It’s found in art, painting, sculpture, music, science, architecture, the drive to research, the urge to discover, and the pursuit of knowledge... I could go on forever, but all these endeavors are products of the human spirit, and therefore, they fall under the umbrella of spirituality.

Which, naturally, implies that atheists are just as spiritual as anyone else; they aren't "non-spiritual" beings.

An atheist might compose a breathtaking symphony, and since composing music is a spiritual act, the distinction becomes moot. A cat, for instance, isn't going to sit down and write a concerto.

hollowpuma762 said:Oh, really? A huge portion of the scientific community and all these geneticists supposedly have genetic engineering and "creation" totally figured out? If you don't see anything questionable about that claim, then there's honestly no point in me trying to break down why it makes zero sense.

Everything you see on this board is just information.

It's all information. An image is information. This "spirituality" you're talking about—whether you choose to interpret it or not—only reaches your rational mind through those bits of information.

You: Just because you rely entirely on subjective interpretations and present your assumptions as hard facts doesn't mean everyone else is following your specific methodology.

Me: So, where exactly in my posts am I being subjective?

You: There are several instances, but your comment regarding Monsanto is relevant since you're presenting pure guesswork about serious matters as if it were reality.

Me: That isn't my subjective opinion...

To put it simply: that is not my subjective opinion.

We could certainly get into a debate over whether scientists are making mistakes when it comes to Monsanto, but that would be going off on a tangent.