Posts by lonegardener

Chloe Barnes8 said:Apemant, honestly, the whole idea of the soul has been kicked out of academic psychology for ages—if it was ever really part of the curriculum to begin with...

Since psychology is always trying so hard to be this exact, hard science, I guess the concept of the soul (which is right there in the name, *psyche*, and should basically be the heart of the field) just started feeling too "old school" for them. So, they swapped it out for stuff like mental processes, personality traits, and all that technical jargon...

They basically handed the soul over to the spiritual side of things. Nowadays, you see these modern movements trying to bridge the gap between psychology and spirituality, especially within Christianity, particularly here in the West among Protestant circles...

It’s like that old saying: when everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon, everyone else follows suit just to stay in the loop. 😂

How can it claim to be an exact science when it deals with something that collective human knowledge simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND?

I don't claim to know how the human psyche works either; however, I know just enough to conclude that nobody truly does. At least, not with that level of certainty engineers have when they explain how semiconductors work. Now, semiconductors are incredibly complex, but compared to the human brain, they are practically trivial. Essentially, psychology boils down to an "educated guess." It isn't totally blind, since it relies on data and research—mostly statistical—but we all know how that goes; lies, blatant lies, and if you want to get technical, statistics 😈. But because the system being studied is hopelessly overcomplicated, even that "educated guess" can sometimes yield results worse than a total shot in the dark.

Because of that, I value official psychology only slightly more than highly skilled amateur intuition. An intelligent person with deep empathy and significant life experience can "read" someone just as successfully as a "trained professional." Granted, "reading" someone is much easier than "treating" them—though psychiatrists aren't exactly winning any awards when it comes to treatment, either. For instance, my uncle has been struggling with mental illness for twenty years. All his doctors seem to know how to do is pump him full of pills just enough so he isn't a danger to himself or others. In doing so, they've effectively turned him into a zombie. It reminds me of that old medical adage: the surgery was a success, but the patient died.

rustymaker5 said:No, absolutely not. 🙂
It’s not based on my own life, but I see it in people close to me: there's this guy who goes from one failed relationship to the next (I'm not getting into the "why" or pointing fingers here), and when someone suggests maybe he's the common denominator, she just shrugs—as if we simply don't get it, because their connection is something else entirely, something special (she even cuts off her friends and family for him)....and then, once he starts treating her like garbage, she comes up with these vague excuses, still holding onto the hope that if she just shows him how much she loves him, it'll be enough to change him. In the end, she actually ends up being "lucky," because he leaves her for another woman who, knowing him, will likely face the exact same treatment.

The reality is that we can't change anyone but ourselves. Whether love is involved or not, it doesn't matter.

🙂 Have you ever heard that old fable about the shepherd boy who loved playing pranks on his village by shouting that a wolf was coming? Well, after he tricked them so many times, when a wolf actually showed up, nobody came to help him, and the wolf wiped out half his flock.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is strictly impossible to change someone. Just because there are countless examples showing how incredibly difficult it is doesn't mean it's impossible. That would be a flawed induction. You know, if you have a bad experience where a marriage falls apart, you can't automatically conclude that every single marriage is a disaster and destined to fail. It's incomplete logic. Though, truth be told, I see those cases all the time. 😬

It's a different question entirely why people are so prone to believing a miracle will happen specifically in *their* case. But that human trait is visible everywhere; this is just one instance.

rustymaker5 said:Who’s actually making a fool of themselves here?
Of course the soul exists... it's just common sense, really.
What on earth could have possibly convinced you otherwise?

I know you're looking to Angela Rogers2 for an answer (let her weigh in), but I'd love to jump into this conversation too.

Who convinced me? Honestly, nobody. In fact, I’m quite against those who—even if they share my views, like Angela Rogers2 does—go out of their way to try and *convince* everyone else. They act as if pushing their worldview is some sort of path to "liberation" or some other lofty goal.

Now, I don't believe in a "soul," but I don't think my lack of belief makes me "right," nor am I acting superior because I refuse to swallow these kinds of fairy tales. It wouldn't even occur to me to write a book trying to debunk the concept.

But why don't I believe in it? First off, let's admit the term sounds a bit naive. Just as someone might suggest psychology sounded childish before professionals replaced the word "soul" with a bunch of technical jargon that doesn't actually mean much more than the original term did. It feels like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. That’s why I still use the word, even if I sound a bit silly doing so.

By "soul," I would mean anything within a human being whose primary (or only) cause isn't matter—in other words, energy. Something that doesn't stem entirely from physical matter/energy. I know there are different takes on this; for instance, I know people who also believe nothing exists beyond matter/energy, yet they argue a "soul" exists as a complex manifestation of that energy. Like how a computer program "exists" even when the machine is powered down.

To me, that interpretation isn't satisfying. At its core, it's still just matter and energy. That isn't what the historical concept of the "soul" represents, and I don't think it's right to just redefine established terms on a whim. If we do that, I'd rather stick to what I'm saying now: the "soul" (as it has been understood through history) doesn't exist, and we can come up with a better, more accurate term for these complex energetic manifestations. At least then we'd avoid the confusion.

But finally, here is why I don't believe in that kind of soul: it's essentially the same reason I don't believe in dragons (the fire-breathing, winged lizards) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 🤷 I see no reason to believe in something that transcends matter when every phenomenon I observe can be explained through matter and energy. To be precise, I can't recall a single occurrence that I couldn't potentially explain through a materialist lens. Even when I lack the specific scientific knowledge to fully grasp a phenomenon, it seems perfectly plausible that an explanation exists within the boundaries of pure materialism. So, why search for anything outside of that? It’s a direct application of Ockham's razor: why invent complex explanations when the obvious ones suffice?

Chloe Barnes8 said:I don't know if I can agree with you there, Boyce...

It reminds me of how Jung used to say that avoiding our actual struggles is basically just a fast track to neurosis—it leaves us stuck with this, well, let's call it a "fragile" kind of existence. See the difference?😉

Man. Sometimes I honestly feel like sitting down with a therapist just out of pure curiosity. But then again, I’d much rather just pay for a drink instead. $100 I’d rather talk to a panhandler on the street than a private shrink; social services would probably just blow me off at the first opportunity anyway. Besides, I actually met the therapist my sister was seeing. I met him because the guy somehow managed to fall for her. His marriage was a total wreck, and for a while, he even seemed to hope something could happen between them, despite all the ethical red flags. What a loser. Not as a person—because, let's be honest, I'm no better than anyone else here, so if you're reading this, don't get the wrong idea—but as a professional. After just seven sentences, it was obvious we were struggling with the exact same issues, except he’s the one "helping" people. Give me a break. Would you buy an elixir for eternal youth and beauty from some old, haggard woman? How is someone supposed to help me when they don't even believe in the soul themselves? It just doesn't add up.

Sandra Parker3 said:It isn't unfounded; it's just futile.
We have the power to shift our own emotions. Dissatisfaction is just a feeling, not a permanent state of being. Once you let it turn into a state, you either have to claw your way out of it or just break completely. There's no middle ground.

Don't accept the dissatisfaction. Accept the thing causing it—the root cause.
Are you seriously saying you'll just accept being miserable forever????
It isn't denial, because I'm not denying anything; I'm accepting the "problem," but I'm changing my relationship to it.

What's the issue with distinguishing between unresolved and solvable problems?
The distinction?
Some are easy to spot. A leaky roof in a Seattle apartment? Solvable. Getting decapitated? Unsolvable.
The rest... well, it's kind of a gray area... honestly, it's just enough to keep life from getting too boring.
You know... sometimes it works... sometimes it doesn't...
and
there's
a difference.
🙂

But there is a third option—just see it through to the end. 🙂

Sandra Parker3 said:It isn't unfounded; it's just futile.
We have the power to shift our own emotions. Dissatisfaction is just a feeling, not a permanent state of being. Once you let it turn into a state, you either have to claw your way out of it or just break completely. There's no middle ground.

Don't accept the dissatisfaction. Accept the thing causing it—the root cause.
Are you seriously saying you'll just accept being miserable forever????
It isn't denial, because I'm not denying anything; I'm accepting the "problem," but I'm changing my relationship to it.

What's the issue with distinguishing between unresolved and solvable problems?
The distinction?
Some are easy to spot. A leaky roof in a Seattle apartment? Solvable. Getting decapitated? Unsolvable.
The rest... well, it's kind of a gray area... honestly, it's just enough to keep life from getting too boring.
You know... sometimes it works... sometimes it doesn't...
and
there's
a difference.
🙂

Fair point. I haven't quite mastered that yet. But I think I'll have to.

Sandra Parker3 said:It isn't unfounded; it's just futile.
We have the power to shift our own emotions. Dissatisfaction is just a feeling, not a permanent state of being. Once you let it turn into a state, you either have to claw your way out of it or just break completely. There's no middle ground.

Don't accept the dissatisfaction. Accept the thing causing it—the root cause.
Are you seriously saying you'll just accept being miserable forever????
It isn't denial, because I'm not denying anything; I'm accepting the "problem," but I'm changing my relationship to it.

What's the issue with distinguishing between unresolved and solvable problems?
The distinction?
Some are easy to spot. A leaky roof in a Seattle apartment? Solvable. Getting decapitated? Unsolvable.
The rest... well, it's kind of a gray area... honestly, it's just enough to keep life from getting too boring.
You know... sometimes it works... sometimes it doesn't...
and
there's
a difference.
🙂

Okay, fine. But do you know anyone dealing with serious depression just because their roof leaks?
Actually, someone could be depressed over a leaky roof—say, if they can't afford the repairs and have begged everyone for help only to be ignored.

As for what constitutes "real" suffering, I don't think I agree with you, or Teresa (or even Jung). If a young girl is miserable because she's five pounds overweight, that's a very real struggle—it's just not caused by those five pounds. It's caused by something much deeper: the realization that she isn't attractive enough, or at least not as attractive as she wants to be. That almost never stems from the weight itself, but from factors she can't fix simply by starving herself. Now, that's an unsolvable problem...

.. for too early in the morning, if you actually went to sleep.

Sandra Parker3 said:There you go again.
That guy mentioned above isn't "unhappy," he's probably just in absolute agony. There's a difference. And honestly, that’s a terrible example; give me something else.

I'm not saying every problem is solvable; it's just that by pure chance, some aren't.

Unresolved issues cause dissatisfaction—or maybe "a lack of satisfaction" sounds better. Why? Probably because they exist and they wreck your life today, tomorrow, and yesterday... even though they don't *have* to exist. You know what I mean? They don't have to exist because you are perfectly capable of taking action against them.
Believe it or not, I know there are problems that are unsolvable—completely impossible to fix, where there is absolutely nothing you can do to make them go away. In those cases, at least a little dissatisfaction is necessary.
But tell this smart-ass 😉 ... what's the point of being dissatisfied if you can't change anything? You just accept the situation for what it is. I'm not going to spend my entire life feeling miserable just because something is beyond my control....
The problem you live with is one that won't leave you, and you won't leave it. What's the use in fighting it? Just shake hands with it and learn to coexist. As for a reason for true dissatisfaction, don't worry, it'll find its way to you.

It’s a massive difference, obviously—like the difference between seeing a speck of dust with the naked eye versus looking at it through a high-powered microscope.

It comes down to principle. If the cause of dissatisfaction is unavoidable, does that mean we can just dismiss the feeling as invalid? It might be futile (since it leads nowhere), but that doesn't make it any less real.

Sandra Parker3 said:There you go again.
That guy mentioned above isn't "unhappy," he's probably just in absolute agony. There's a difference. And honestly, that’s a terrible example; give me something else.

I'm not saying every problem is solvable; it's just that by pure chance, some aren't.

Unresolved issues cause dissatisfaction—or maybe "a lack of satisfaction" sounds better. Why? Probably because they exist and they wreck your life today, tomorrow, and yesterday... even though they don't *have* to exist. You know what I mean? They don't have to exist because you are perfectly capable of taking action against them.
Believe it or not, I know there are problems that are unsolvable—completely impossible to fix, where there is absolutely nothing you can do to make them go away. In those cases, at least a little dissatisfaction is necessary.
But tell this smart-ass 😉 ... what's the point of being dissatisfied if you can't change anything? You just accept the situation for what it is. I'm not going to spend my entire life feeling miserable just because something is beyond my control....
The problem you live with is one that won't leave you, and you won't leave it. What's the use in fighting it? Just shake hands with it and learn to coexist. As for a reason for true dissatisfaction, don't worry, it'll find its way to you.

Are you trying to say "unresolved, but SOLVABLE problems"? 😁

But how do you actually distinguish a solvable problem from an unsolvable one?

Sandra Parker3 said:There you go again.
That guy mentioned above isn't "unhappy," he's probably just in absolute agony. There's a difference. And honestly, that’s a terrible example; give me something else.

I'm not saying every problem is solvable; it's just that by pure chance, some aren't.

Unresolved issues cause dissatisfaction—or maybe "a lack of satisfaction" sounds better. Why? Probably because they exist and they wreck your life today, tomorrow, and yesterday... even though they don't *have* to exist. You know what I mean? They don't have to exist because you are perfectly capable of taking action against them.
Believe it or not, I know there are problems that are unsolvable—completely impossible to fix, where there is absolutely nothing you can do to make them go away. In those cases, at least a little dissatisfaction is necessary.
But tell this smart-ass 😉 ... what's the point of being dissatisfied if you can't change anything? You just accept the situation for what it is. I'm not going to spend my entire life feeling miserable just because something is beyond my control....
The problem you live with is one that won't leave you, and you won't leave it. What's the use in fighting it? Just shake hands with it and learn to coexist. As for a reason for true dissatisfaction, don't worry, it'll find its way to you.

It's quite the opposite: you accept the dissatisfaction. In other words, you accept that you will feel dissatisfied the entire time. That is actually what "acceptance" means. What you're describing sounds more like denial.

Jerry Martinez5 said:I completely agree with this.

Dissatisfaction is fine if, say, you're frustrated because your paycheck at Starbucks is too small, so you work harder or find a better job. Only in those specific cases.

But being unhappy about things we have zero control over? Well, we always have control over ourselves; we can change how we react to it. I've been unhappy with my family situation. I'm learning that I'm an adult now and there's no reason to let it get to me. Adults choose to enter relationships that suit them. Mine don't. So, I'm distancing myself.

I’m feeling dissatisfied because it feels like I don't have a soul—like humans in general are just biochemical machines. Just a collection of decaying molecules, as some wacky comic book character might put it.

Is there a psychologist out there who actually knows how to convince someone they possess a soul? And more importantly, what kind of methods do they use? I might be interested in hearing from one.

Sandra Parker3 said:Things out of our hands are simply beyond our reach...?
Please.
You take them as they come; there's no point in making a scene over them.
Though I still wouldn't agree with being stuck in that constant state of discontent.
If you can't change something, why bother getting worked up? It’s outside your power. Being pissed off or frustrated by it doesn't solve a damn thing.
Real frustration actually comes from the things we *can* influence—the stuff we should be shaping or changing—but we choose not to.
So, ultimately, you end up being frustrated with yourself. You aren't shifting the blame onto someone else. What's the point? Every single second, you could have taken action, and right now... you aren't. That's where the frustration lives.
I had something else to say but I totally blanked.
Probably something about tolerance...

Hmmmmmmm... I suppose a man feels pretty dissatisfied when he's being crucified or impaled. Believe it or not, people actually used to do that.

So, what advice do you give someone currently on a spit? Don't be upset—you can't exactly hop off the stake yourself, so there's really no point in losing sleep over it. It won't change the outcome. 😍

It's a bit of a drastic example 😬, but I am genuinely curious why modern people start from such a nonsensical premise: the idea that every problem is either solvable, or if it isn't, you shouldn't let it bother you? For crying out loud, that's just life. You face hardship and you endure it. And no, you aren't going to "fix" it. Not ever.

By the way, who brought up Vasilisa the Beautiful? Enchantress? Honey, you seem to have forgotten the gist of that story; it was probably ages ago. She didn't subject her Johnny to any trials; quite the opposite. The king put him through the wringer, he’d complain, and then Vasilisa would swoop in to save him (quite the girl... 😵 ). In that whole tale, John wasn't some macho hero proving his worth; he was more like a pushover who happened to stumble into success. Besides, he isn't even the main attraction—Vasilisa steals the entire show. 👍 (even though she doesn't show up until the second half). What did she even see in that weakling? This story was almost certainly cooked up by some man xexexexexe

Light EDIT: I actually think we might be talking about a different Vasilisa. You mention the "Beautiful," whereas I'm certain I'm thinking of the "Wise" one. The story starts with the friendship between a sparrow and a mouse—rings any bells? There's the great war between birds and beasts, a wounded eagle, a hunter who misses three times before finally taking him, raising him, and healing him, only for the bird to drop him from the sky three times to settle the score? Then the sisters from the bronze, silver, and gold cities, and those magic boxes that release castles we can't figure out how to put back inside? ... That was my favorite from the "fairytale world" collection. I must have read it at least a hundred times. But as I said, "Vasilisa" might not be that rare a name in these old stories...

If the ONLY reason you're selling is because you haven't quite mastered the balance after ten tries (and not because they don't fit your style or you suddenly lost your legs 😬 )—my advice is to stick with it.

Learning to rollerblade isn't an intellectual exercise; it’s just like learning to swim. You jump into the water and start moving. If it doesn't click after ten attempts, give it twenty. Find someone who actually knows what they're doing and watch their technique. Just be persistent. I promise it pays off later—rollerblading is easily seven times more fun than riding a bike.

Edit: oops, didn't check the date...

funky Daemon said:the OP is clearly obsessed with success... 😁
so, my answer is NO. ...
you simply can't outwork "talented" people through practice alone... 😁

To be more precise, you can't outwork talented people who *also* work just as hard as you do. You might eventually catch up to or even surpass talented individuals who haven't fully leaned into their gifts.

A perfect example would be David Nalbandian. Most tennis experts agree the guy is pure talent, yet he never quite reached the absolute summit—likely because he wasn't willing to dedicate his entire life to the sport the way Roger Federer did. On the flip side, someone less naturally gifted like Nikolaj Davidenko could train just as relentlessly as Roger, but he'll likely never close the gap, no matter how much effort he puts in. After all, Roger works just as hard, but his ceiling is significantly higher due to that raw talent.

(edit: I spelled that name the American way, dammit)

Adam Ross4 said:achieving success is generally unacceptable... 😁
I mean... what does "success" even mean? 🤔

when we're talking about art and talent, obviously...

Success. That’s the big theme you hear blasted in every Hollywood movie since you were a kid. Honestly, I find it hard to believe we aren't actually on the same page here. By that definition, "succeeding" is primarily about proving something to everyone else rather than to yourself—even though you constantly claim you're doing it for your own sake (and you make sure to announce it loudly enough to make the whole thing a complete xexexe paradox). A total vanity project, if you ask me.

On another note, TS (hey, you learn something new every day) brought up the whole "talent vs. practice" debate. Am I the only one who feels like this dilemma naturally leads to the question: "Which one matters more for SUCCESS?" Because otherwise, why even bother debating the two?

swiftcobra15 said:

Success isn't even mentioned in TS.

It really comes down to whether you're driven by raw talent or sheer practice—and motivation is obviously the deciding factor here.
If my goal is to beat everyone else (using "being better" as a polite euphemism), then I’m going to grind, practice relentlessly, and sacrifice whatever is necessary to hit that target of success.

But if what matters to me is personal fulfillment rather than just winning, I’ll focus on nurturing my talents without burning myself out. I won't kill myself over training; instead, I'll just enjoy every single moment spent honing my craft.😁

What exactly is TS?

Look, I basically agree with you. Personally, I find talent much more fascinating than hard work. Back in elementary school, I always thought ladybugs were charming, while ants were just boring, self-righteous pests. 😬

nobody said:Don't measure success by comparing yourself to everyone else. Instead, judge it by the sheer joy you feel when you nail something you're working on, the passion that drives you to keep going, and the genuine happiness you feel seeing that same love for the craft in others—rather than using their wins to make your own feel smaller... 😉

Do you honestly believe that? 🙂

Do you really think Kramnik feels happy just because he sees Topalov sharing that same passion for chess (and vice versa)? Does he celebrate Anja Janičin's medals?

Don't get me wrong; I wish people actually functioned the way you're describing. But I have to say, that’s far from reality—except, perhaps, in very rare instances.

cosanostra said:They say success is 1% talent and 99% hard work. If that’s actually true, then any one of us could make it if we just put in the hours.

Individually? Sure, anyone can win. But collectively? That’s impossible. Success is inherently relative. To truly call someone a "success," there has to be a massive group of people left behind who didn't make the cut.

Chris Peterson53 said:Medicine doesn't agree with that, which is why there's a ten-week limit on when an abortion can occur.
From a religious standpoint, every practitioner is a serial killer and the mothers are accomplices, because life begins at the very first stage.

Don't hide behind "medicine." You either agree with something or you don't. "Medicine" isn't some monolithic entity with a single, unified opinion. There are plenty of people within what you call "medicine" who believe life starts at conception, while others couldn't disagree more.

Personally, I think life actually began about three billion years ago with the emergence of the first protein. 😁

Austin Roberts8 said:The majority opinion isn't an actual argument. If society decides something is okay or isn't, that doesn't mean I have to go along with it. I don't agree with RH, and I do agree with China. That’s all there is to it.

I hear you, but you were actually the one who previously claimed that "society determines what is justifiable."

Since you're the one choosing which society to align yourself with, it turns out you're still the one deciding what's justifiable after all. Isn't that right? 😉

Austin Roberts8 said:I still don't get what side you're actually on. You just tear down everything I say without offering an alternative.

Don't be so defensive. I'm not attacking you personally; I'm just trying to shake up your perspective a little. Not too hard, though—I wouldn't want you to hate me. 🙂

Besides, I’m not sure what "alternative" you think is missing. It already exists in America and throughout most of Europe. The only outlier is that the US still maintains the death penalty, if we aren't counting various dictatorships or religious quasi-states and similar monstrosities.😬

Anyway, take a look at this map.

Even slavery persisted in the US for centuries after the rest of the civilized world had moved on.

Austin Roberts8 said:Should I go out and screw your sister just so you can be reasonable? See, even a question like that sets you off, let alone if I actually did it. If that didn't bother you at all, then I have nothing left to say.

You meant to say "rape," right? Just saying someone got screwed isn't a crime. 😈

Look, I definitely distinguish between seeking revenge a year later with a cool head and an immediate, visceral reaction. If I saw someone kill my family and I caught them within a few hours, I'd probably kill them without a second thought. That kind of reaction is far less horrific than a calculated vendetta fueled by years of nurtured hatred. And that is essentially what the death penalty is, because people sit on death row for a very long time before their sentence is carried out.

The problem with capital punishment lies exactly in that sense of self-righteousness. There isn't a rational person alive who wouldn't view cold-blooded murder committed for personal gain as a heinous crime. Yet here we see an example of cold-blooded murder being viewed as justified, socially beneficial, or even necessary.

Austin Roberts8 said:I guess I’ll return the favor and answer you in your own style: with endless questions and circular arguments that lead nowhere. What even is justice to you? Who gets to define it? Who sits in judgment? And is that judge actually fair or objective? Is the whole point of punishment to penalize the individual, to rehabilitate them, or is it just a deterrent to make sure it doesn't happen again?

The whole point of punishment should be rehabilitation. But let’s be honest—given how messy things have become in modern society, I can certainly wrap my head around harsher measures if they serve to protect the community at large. In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need this kind of punishment. If someone refuses to reform, you’d just exile them. It’s pretty simple: if you refuse to respect the rules that everyone else agreed upon, you shouldn't be allowed to participate in the community. The problem is that in America today, there isn't exactly a "nowhere" left to send an unrepentant offender. That lack of space is exactly why we're stuck with these grim institutions we call prisons.

Austin Roberts8 said:You completely missed the point of the example I gave everyone else. If the death penalty were an institutional reality, there would be a psychological deterrent built into the minds of most people—including psychos. You're fixating on the actions of a psycho as if we have fifty of them out there every single day, teaming up to murder fifty people.

By chance, you were actually the first one to bring that argument up; but it seems like you just don't like how easily it can be thrown right back at you, like a boomerang. 🙂
Even with the death penalty on the books here in the States, it’s pretty clear that it doesn't stop every psycho from committing horrific acts. If anything, I get the impression these tragedies happen more frequently here than they do in Europe. Often, a psycho will even take their own life right after the crime. Do you honestly believe the threat of an execution means anything to someone like that?

I was looking through a list of death row inmates just the other day, and I came across some truly disturbing cases. There was one guy who robbed a bank—he didn't actually intend to kill anyone—but when the police started chasing him, he just started firing blindly behind him while running. In the process, he ended up killing an officer. It’s hard to wrap your head around someone that much of a psycho; you really have to wonder if the death penalty is the only "appropriate" way to handle a monster like that.

Austin Roberts8 said:Punishment simply isn't an option here; his crimes are so massive they defy any standard scale of justice. His death is the only way—just removing one psycho from the face of the earth.

You might want to consider where that line of thinking actually leads. I’m sorry if my bluntness comes off as offensive, but I just wanted to be upfront with you.

Austin Roberts8 said:I’m not even going to touch that last point. It sounds like something straight out of a sociology textbook—looks great on paper, sure, but we both know it doesn't work that way in the real world. And honestly, describing revenge as this endless "cyclical loop" is just nonsense. If someone kills my sister, I take them out, and that's the end of it. Period. There is no infinite cycle; it's over.

Oh, I disagree. It definitely happens. In those scenarios, my brother might kill you and your kids, then one of them survives, grows up, and goes on to hunt down my brother's grandkids, and so on. Blood feuds have been passed down through generations for ages. A rational person sees that cycle for what it is and refuses to give in to the urge for revenge.

Austin Roberts8 said:I'm actually in favor of the death penalty, not against it. A psycho doesn't care about what the law says because they're a psycho. And like I said regarding him, punishment isn't the point. The penalty should serve as an example to others. Plus, if even a psycho sees what's coming for them, maybe they'll actually seek help. Whatever they've done, it's good for them to have that subconscious knowledge that they'll face execution or whatever for their actions. Also, that death penalty should provide some sense of closure for those families. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

You're being a little incoherent here. Is the death penalty meant to be an example to others, a punishment for the criminal, or satisfaction for the victims (or their families)? Or is it a mix of all three?

Regarding setting an example: I’ve already mentioned this. If someone doesn't care about killing 25 children because of the sheer depravity of the act, a threat of the death penalty isn't going to phase them. So, using "setting an example" as a justification for capital punishment in its current form is simply a nonsensical argument. Maybe if we were executing people for petty crimes, like stealing gum at a convenience store, then it could serve as an "example."

As for punishing him: what is the actual utility of having him carry that subconscious knowledge that he'll be killed for his crime? Usually, encouraging remorse serves to rehabilitate someone—to change them or teach them something. But if you're planning on killing them anyway, what purpose does triggering remorse serve? It feels like pointless LARPing; it's honestly quite childish. It's how kids love to suffocate in their own sense of self-righteousness when another kid gets the "deserved" punishment.

When it comes to providing satisfaction to the victims—empirical evidence shows that revenge just generates more revenge and nothing else. We should be fighting against this strange, dangerous urge for vengeful gratification rather than indulging it to soothe ourselves. It is incredibly easy to lose oneself in vengeful self-righteousness. Most vigilantes truly believe their thirst for satisfaction is justified, even though, objectively speaking, it rarely is. A vigilante is only different from a criminal based on the question of "who started it"—which is itself one of those many childish tropes. No one started it; the first amino acid started it. Or better yet, the Big Bang started it. 😈

dr duca said:I don't quite get why people view punishment solely as a way to penalize an individual for breaking the law or acting illegitimately. Punishment should really serve as a deterrent to prevent others from following suit. I also believe the death penalty is acceptable because it isn't just "punishment" in the traditional sense. Capital punishment—though "punishment" is technically the wrong word here—exists to make the world a better place. When you have a serial predator who rapes 50 women or kills 25 children, there simply isn't a sentence harsh enough to satisfy justice.

So, you’re saying capital punishment should act as a deterrent, but then you bring up the example of a maniac raping 50 women and killing 25 children. Do you honestly think someone like that cares about the death penalty? Are you suggesting that in states where the death penalty is legal, these types of predators will pause and think twice before committing those atrocities out of fear? On the flip side, are you implying that in states without capital punishment, these monsters will just multiply like rabbits?