Sean Cruz said:I can agree with almost everything said here, except for that final sentence. Why on earth do you think pride has no place in love? Do you honestly believe that people who stomp all over the person they claim to "love" actually love them? I don't. Now, the definition of "love" is subjective, but based on my understanding of romantic or erotic love, it certainly doesn't involve being someone else's doormat. That isn't love; it’s just selfishness masquerading as masochism. When you truly love someone, you don't want them to suffer—in fact, for me, the ultimate act of love is letting someone go so they can find their own happiness if they aren't fulfilled in the relationship. Unfortunately, people are selfish, and often driven by massive egos rather than affection, they won't let a partner go; instead, they toss out mere crumbs just to keep them hanging on. Similarly, those who endure such nonsense are choosing to suffer because they refuse to leave and seek happiness elsewhere, even when they know deep down the other person doesn't care. That is pure selfishness too. There isn't a single li of love in that. Unconditional love is a myth.
It’s a shame, really, but I suppose we haven't quite touched on this yet. After all, if you look at one of the actual definitions:
-citat:
What exactly is pride? Is it just a fleeting emotion, or is it that profound sense of deep satisfaction one feels when looking inward? To me, true pride isn't about vanity; it’s about that quiet, steady respect you hold for your own entire being—your whole self, in its entirety.
It stems from that deeply personal, subjective realization—that sense you get when you truly believe you’ve done something meaningful, or perhaps played a part in something genuinely special. Isn't there a certain weight to that feeling? It’s that internal conviction that your actions actually mattered, that you contributed to something worthy of praise. Pride is a real thing, but we shouldn't be using it as an excuse to dig our heels in. Not like that, anyway. A truly proud person? They’re capable of setting their ego aside for the sake of someone else.
Do you honestly believe that people who stare at someone they claim to "love" actually feel what they say they feel? Personally, I have my doubts. Is it true affection we’re seeing, or is it just something else entirely? I really don't think it's genuine.
No, that’s not what love is about at all. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough—which, let’s be honest, is a bit of a habit of mine. You shouldn't dare try to love everyone, but any form of violence is completely off the table. In true love, there is only the act of letting go.
It’s honestly quite sad, isn't it? It makes me wonder what people actually mean when they use the word "love." Because if we look at the true essence of romantic or erotic love, it should never involve being someone else's doormat. To me, that isn't love at all—it’s just selfishness disguised as masochism. When you truly care about someone, why on earth would you want them to suffer? For me, the ultimate act of love is actually letting go. If someone isn't finding happiness within a relationship, the most selfless thing you can do is release them so they can find their own joy elsewhere. But let's be real: people are inherently selfish. Often, driven by massive egos rather than any actual affection, they refuse to let go. Instead, they just feed their partner tiny crumbs of attention, just enough to keep them hooked and prevent them from leaving. And then there are those who choose to endure this nonsense, consciously putting themselves through agony because they are too afraid to walk away and seek happiness, even when they know deep down the other person doesn't love them. Isn't that also pure selfishness? There is no real love to be found in that cycle. lj It all comes down to love.
In medias res. What exactly is love? What I’ve laid out above isn't it—that’s precisely why I’m writing this. I’m not interested in discussing cheap substitutes or hollow imitations. In truth, I’ve said the exact same thing you did; I just managed to condense it into two short lines.
Does unconditional love actually exist? I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and honestly, I’m starting to believe it’s nothing more than a beautiful myth we tell ourselves. We see it in movies and read about it in sweeping romance novels, but when you strip away the cinematic lighting and the scripted monologues, what are we really left with? Is it truly possible to love someone without any strings attached, regardless of their actions or who they become? Or is every single affection we feel inherently tied to some level of expectation, reciprocity, or shared values? It feels like we're always looking for that one exception to the rule, but maybe the rule is simply that all love comes with conditions.
Yeah... I completely lost track of the fact that Andre Malraux wrote something along the lines of: once you truly become a human being, that’s when it’s time to die (in >). It’s such a profound way to describe the pathos of realization, isn't it? I mean--
redtinker36 said:.. I have to say this again.. what’s the core of my argument here?
.. It’s based on the idea that a person isn't truly alive.. they just exist..
.. It’s based on the fact that there’s a social world—a consensus among people.. .. And the fact that behind that world lies another one—a world of lies—peering out from everyone.. This isn't just some conspiracy theory..
.. Once a person.. realizes their actual place.. they see that.. if everything goes according to plan.. they're screwed.. .. That's why they perform miracles—trying to patch up their true standing with any illusion they can find.. They call love God.. but individuality remains a distant dream, because they are nobody and nothing..
.. The only real way out is.. to stop fighting.. and consistent surrender means death..
.. Let me try once more.. more concisely..
1 .. The neighborhood surrounding you is predatory.. and you are merely prey to it..
2 .. If you engage in a fight with that neighborhood.. you've done exactly what the enemy wants..
3 .. But there is a chance for victory.. and that chance lies in refusing to fight..
.. One more time..
1 .. A person isn't alive.. they simply exist.. 2 .. Up until now, they lived within the neighborhood.. 3 .. That was until now..
(.. I wrote that down quite well.. it’s a system of teamwork—you repeat it.. constantly repeat it.. that’s how you build a scheme.. something piercing.. something clear.. and that’s where people fall apart.. I know.. I've been there.. .. I don't know.. personally, I think this is ugly enough that there's no reason to delete it.. so whatever.. this is just for me, and I really like it.. )
You might have lost a few points here, but my little anarchist cookbook knows how to handle things like this:
1. true, but there's also too much "Matrix" influence at play; we often exist merely as cogs in a machine, essentially denying our own true existence
2. always employ a strategy of engagement that catches your adversary completely off guard
3. which matters more: the struggle itself or the ultimate win? After all, does winning actually enlighten anyone else? Even when you emerge victorious against all odds, does it truly open eyes?
Ronald Rogers27 said:I’m actually interested in the exact opposite: the link between specific mental illnesses and specific religions when it comes to negative impacts—how religion might actually worsen or trigger certain psychological conditions...
For instance, look at Jihad. Specifically, the suicide bomber aspect. You can't call those people "normal." Is that just extreme religious indoctrination, or does it count as a genuine psychological distortion? 🤷
Ronald Rogers27
That’s a highly debatable point... some people choose this path with full awareness, while others are raised from childhood specifically to become exactly that. If there is an objective reason why such "violence" exists, shouldn't we view it as a logical response to an inherently abnormal situation? I truly believe that most of them are more than just "normal."
nimbleviper142 said:Honestly, it’s nothing out of the ordinary. I’ve heard this plenty of times, and we actually dealt with something similar in my own family... Anyway, the best move is just not to make a huge deal out of it. Don't go running to the pediatrician over this—you'll just end up traumatizing him. Don't force him into anything or lose your cool, at least not right in front of him. Just sit him down and explain that it's totally normal and everyone does it. You could even offer to go to the bathroom with him, though that feels like going a bit overboard if you ask me. Then, maybe start some "therapy" using stuff like prune juice or other NATURAL laxatives. If he needs to wear diapers for a bit, let him.
He’s probably just terrified it’s going to hurt, or it's some other irrational fear. It might sound trivial to us, but for a two-year-old, it’s a massive deal.
It’s a long, exhausting process to get past this, if that's how you want to put it, but things will work out. In the case I know, they finally got it sorted by the time they were in fourth grade. But my memory isn't perfect, and they started dealing with it much later than your kid, plus nobody was there to help them—actually, it was the opposite, everything was made way harder than it needed to be.
Take my advice. I'm telling you this from experience, so I really hope it helps. 🙂
I completely agree with this suggestion; if you look above, you'll see I actually suggested something very similar. And regarding the fruit, fresh prunes work just as well... or even fresh figs.
hiddenhound3, you've received some really solid advice here. You can handle this.
hiddenhound3 said:I am starting this thread because I’ve been thinking quite a bit about a situation involving a friend’s young son. The boy is four years old, and ever since he started preschool two years ago, he has been refusing to have bowel movements.😢It causes him an immense amount of physical discomfort and pain.
Since the child has already been seen by several different doctors, and their collective consensus is that he is perfectly healthy from a physiological standpoint, my own conclusion is that he is somehow consciously attempting to suppress his natural reflexes. He cries intensely, jumps around, clings to whatever he can reach, and suffers through visible spasms.
Perhaps my assessment is incorrect, but the situation is truly distressing. The parents were told that the issue is psychological in nature and that it will likely resolve itself naturally by the time he reaches puberty.😲
... but honestly, it's wild that this has been going on for two years. Could it have been an overly aggressive transition away from diapers? Also, I think Gary James88 made an excellent suggestion, though I’d personally recommend whole plums over any kind of supplement, even if those tablets are plant-based.
It’s about more than just faces. In the manufacturing of complex electronic components, women are actually the ones handling the quality control exclusively... they tend to be faster and significantly more reliable at it. They just have a sharper eye for those subtle differences. It isn't necessarily about being "dangerous," either; you see this same pattern in the animal kingdom. The fundamental premise is recognizing one's own offspring, which is driven primarily by sight, and only then reinforced by scent.
redharbor9 said:What do you mean by "statics"? And I don't see what more offspring being born has to do with anything.
When we talk about recognizing offspring, we’re talking about identifying specific traits and spotting the nuances necessary to provide for them.
Generally speaking, women tend to be more observant and perceptive in social interactions compared to men, though they might react a bit slower when a situation shifts rapidly—just look at how people handle driving on the highway. Then there’s dynamics...
redharbor9 said:...so, what about processing speed and/or how accurate it actually is at recognizing female faces?
The title says it all. Throw out whatever ideas or theories you've got. 😍
Women just seem to be better at picking up on "static" details—it's something that goes all the way back to our earliest ancestors. After all, isn't it part of the biological drive to look after the next generation?
You know, there’s a common saying that psychiatrists eventually become "cases" themselves... not everyone, obviously, but it happens more than people care to admit. Still, I can't help but wonder about how many of those stories run in your family
@Keith Lee I honestly think the experiment is fundamentally flawed... Think about it, wouldn't baseball players find it impossible to hit a fastball if they weren't constantly predicting its trajectory? It’s the same logic regarding suicide; if the brain (or a specific part of it) is actively running checks, then the act won't happen... which means you can actually bypass that process entirely. I've just been scribbling some thoughts down myself
Free will... you can exercise it at any moment, though many would argue it’s always conditioned—though wouldn't it be more poetic to say it's simply "constrained"? I have to admit, I find the etymology a bit fuzzy here. To me, a "constraint" feels like the starting point of possibility, whereas a "condition" feels more like the unfolding process of an action itself. Unfortunately, Mr. Laden seems to view things from the opposite perspective. Honestly, I'm struggling to find the right words until I can wrap my head around this better. It's like the old chicken and the egg dilemma; it looks unsolvable on the surface, but it actually becomes quite simple if you look closely enough.
Just please don't hit me with a "people die for the will of God" response. 😉
Whether it's learning from your own failures to refine what you already have, or simply pushing toward a new horizon... striving for a goal...
But what exactly defines "forward"? To me, progress is really just a change in location—moving from point A to point B. Sometimes, that "location" is a state of mind where you finally start to understand who you truly are. Life works exactly that way, doesn't it?
http://fliiby.com/file/353194/yy91an0xi8.html It’s beautiful while it lasts, isn't it? But nothing stays perfect forever... They say that once the pain becomes too much to bear, you realize just how fleeting everything was—and usually, by then, it's already too late. Still, there are happy endings out there if you know where to look; check under section 5.
Our latest dark gem long ago held more treasures like this....
-quote- "And they love those silly little jabs. Like this one: How do you read GOD backwards? DOG."
This is just another blatant lie, I didn't even notice it was written there. I’m asking the moderators to please follow the community guidelines and remove people like this from the forum. Their only goal is to distort the truth and spread falsehoods; their very presence is a nuisance because they spend all their time pretending to be "something" they aren't.
I don’t feel bad for you in a way that I'm pitying you; rather, it’s just that you failed right where you had the chance to succeed. That’s really the core issue here—it’s a massive problem, and honestly, such a missed opportunity. I hope you follow what I'm saying, or is your understanding limited there too? Did you happen to avoid the ID because it reminds you too much of IPD, isn't that right? The key is to stay invisible to the eye, unless you end up exposing yourself.
It’s obvious you’re trying to read between the lines, but once again, you keep circling back to talking about yourself; you just couldn't help it, could you?
But everything you're doing is just wrong. When you got hung up on the avatar, of course you wouldn't have the ability to find it—and it isn't just about the sphere (which isn't even on the chessboard if you actually look at the difference in light intensity).
dustyskipper3 said:You are absolutely right, though I decided to go with a slightly more "literary" style because the topic requires a layered approach, and also to see if anyone would actually grasp it. I assumed there was at least one such person on this forum.
It is true that the interpretation of political assassinations shifts depending on the atmosphere, but for me, they are all bad. There are no "good" political assassinations. It honestly baffles me when someone calls me out for a digression regarding the connection between Austria—where Josef Fritzl is—and America, which used to be part of the Austro-Canadian Empire. It surprises me, because everyone here is so outraged by Fritzl and what he did in that distant land of Austria, yet guys like glavaš and Merčep are still walking free. The latter is even on the board of directors for ExxonMobil, while the former is preparing to spend the rest of his life in luxury, where the principle of pleasure will override the principle of responsibility (just like most of the domestic political elite). Instead of being thrown into a cell and sent to the kind of institution he belongs in.😁
Once again, you seem to be talking in circles. The truth is incredibly straightforward, regardless of how much you dwell on "nuance." This isn't depth; it's just an inability to express a point or reach a logical conclusion. It shows up in every single post you make. My stance is simple: criminals should be punished, not studied. When we focus on studying them, we essentially provide them with a roadmap on how to hide their tracks more effectively next time. We need thorough, decisive action against those responsible—a kind of social antibiotic—and that is what I advocate for. By the way, that little smiley face of yours is quite something. It fits perfectly with that "heavy hand" you keep mentioning. You're playing the role of a provocateur masquerading as a seeker of justice.
Jerry Martinez5 As stated by: I haven't had the opportunity to read through all the various articles regarding Jeffrey Dahmer, but even before I delved into this specific thread, one central question remained on my mind: what happened to the mother? It seems fundamentally impossible to accept the narrative that she was entirely oblivious to the situation. One has to wonder about the neighbors or the extended family; surely someone must have been investigated for complicity or at least for turning a blind eye to what was happening under their own roof.
That is precisely what I consider to be the central enigma of the entire situation. According to one of the articles, Jeffrey Dahmer claimed that his daughter had simply left home to join some sort of cult. It is truly remarkable that a mother and her four siblings could go twenty-four years without once reaching out to check on their own daughter—their own sister. If I didn't have someone in my immediate inner circle who lived through a nearly identical situation, I would find such a thing utterly shocking. However, since this isn't an isolated case for me, I am forced to reach a rather blunt conclusion: the entire family is psychologically dysfunctional.
Article
This bolded part... interesting, right? But I would really appreciate it if you could answer this: