Posts by Anonymous

Mark Torres14 said:Well... true. I've been pretty low-key lately. Just lurking, watching, then suddenly jumping out from behind a bush shouting "BOO!"😍

I don't get why you think a reason is valid just because it's widely accepted. Are you saying dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because so many people agreed with it?

I don't see any justification for the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a crime. Period.
But if society passes a death penalty law, it has to be based on some universally accepted community principle. Only then can we say the reasoning holds water. In a strictly human, universal sense, any individual or society that claims the right to kill a person or group—no matter what their excuse is—is just a killer, or a society built on killing. But in the real world, most people answer "yes" to this question.

I think there's a thin line between the psychopaths who kill for sick reasons and those soldiers or kamikazes you mentioned...

No. Anyone in a war can kill. A normal person kills out of fear; a madman kills for pleasure. You have to actually experience war to understand it.
God forbid we ever see war in this country again.
"Saving Private Ryan" by Spielberg is a great movie, or maybe Coppola's "Apocalypse Now."

Yeah, I guess I went a little overboard with my conclusion there... you've got a point.

Eric Collins5 said:The book's circumstances were totally different, though. Raskolnikov (was he 😕, honestly, that book was such a slog for me) didn't go after the old woman because he felt threatened. No, he did it because he convinced himself he was performing some kind of "greater good."

In that specific scenario, he wasn't acting in self-defense at all... he was the aggressor.

Well, it’s not exactly about doing a good deed. That's just how it's framed at the start of the novel; the deeper meaning isn't really explained until the very end 😁. He killed her because he wanted to test himself—to see if he actually had what it takes to kill without hesitation. Basically, he was going through this massive intellectual crisis...

Yeah, true, but I was just using that as an example to show you that you can never truly know how you'll act until you're actually in the thick of it.

* I seem to remember Raskolnikov saying toward the end of the book that he went into the murder acting like a "brilliant mind," and that's exactly what screwed him over... he said he'd never do something like that again.

Eric Collins5 said:Look, what I'm trying to get at is that you're talking about a situation where someone is actively threatening a life. In a moment of pure survival, when everything is on the line... I honestly believe you could pull the trigger without even hesitating. 🤷

Hmm... so, I was just reading "Crime and Punishment," where the guy kills two people. Sure, he hesitated for a second beforehand, but once he did it, it was done. But then, once reality actually hit him and he realized what he'd actually done, he completely lost his mind...
I guess it's impossible to truly predict how you'd react until you're actually in the middle of it...

casualwolf12 said:Well, what do I know? I suppose I would aim for something swift and painless. One shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering, after all. If I were to conclude that an individual truly constitutes a malignant thread in the fabric of our society, I would simply seek to 'remove' them as humanely as possible.

Heh, looks like we all screwed up back then!! 👎

Man, you really need a drink before you start going on a killing spree 🤣

Eric Collins5 said:The Lone Ranger is a bit of an outlier, so I can't really speak for everyone.🙂

I don't know, maybe I would... 🤷

But look, let's be real here: by default, my own life feels more valuable than anyone else's. That's just how it is.

Sure, that might be true, but saying it so bluntly feels a bit harsh. Personally, I’d weigh it differently—like, if I absolutely had to choose, I’d rather save a five-year-old girl over a hundred-year-old man.😁

Eric Collins5 said:Because my life matters more to me than some stranger's does...🤷

I don't see anything controversial about what I said. Honestly, it's just common sense.🤷

Quincy:

If you had the chance to kill one person and face zero legal consequences, would you do it?

I interpreted the question as: "I'm going out to murder someone just because they're getting on my nerves..."
You didn't?

Oh, I get it. So you wouldn't even sacrifice yourself to save someone else—like, say, your little sister if she were five years old (just as an example)—because your life is somehow more valuable than hers??

* You put it a bit bluntly there, but honestly, that's how I interpreted it too.🙂

Eric Collins5 said:😵

So, do you have telepathic abilities or something? Is that how you reached these conclusions? 😂

The answer is no... ☕

EDIT:

If my own life were on the line, I think I could take someone out without even blinking...🙂

And honestly, I've always been pretty indifferent toward the death of others in general.

Why do you assume your life carries more weight than anyone else's? If you're saying you could kill someone
"without blinking" if your life was at risk, then I really don't get why you answered "no" earlier.

* Personally, I don't think there's ever a justifiable reason for murder—it just doesn't exist...

Mark Torres14 said:Read the last sentence of my quote again, Brenda Cook4.
For a reason to actually count, it has to be something society accepts.

Man, it looks like I totally missed that point. 🙂I don't get why a reason being "generally accepted" makes it okay to kill someone. Are you seriously suggesting that dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a justifiable excuse for all those deaths???

In my opinion, there’s a razor-thin line between the psychopaths who kill because they have some twisted motive and the soldiers, kamikazes, and whatever else you brought up...

Maybe the only real difference is just that the second group is "socially acceptable."

Mark Torres14 said:No way. You've just got broken people.
A killer is someone who takes a life for nothing. If there's a reason behind it, we don't call them killers—we use labels like soldier, defender, patriot, or terrorist. It’s all about whether the motive serves society or just one person's ego.😁

There’s no such thing as a killer who acts without cause; there is always a motive and an explanation!

edit: Just as an example, a soldier kills because they were ordered to by the government, whereas someone else might kill because they're mentally ill and an internal voice is "ordering" them to do it. In that case, maybe the second person actually has a much stronger "reason" to kill...

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

my answer is "no"
Killing someone means killing a part of yourself; the book "Crime and Punishment" explains that perfectly... I highly recommend it to anyone who answered "yes."

btw, based on what you wrote, it sounds like murder isn't actually the point for you—it's more about how other people perceive it. I don't really get the point of your post. 🤷

I’d say this is proof that there really is "something more" out there.
Honestly, I think most people—even those who call themselves believers—don't actually believe. They convince themselves they do, yet they still live their lives as if God doesn't exist. May God help them find a way to open the doors of their minds, even just for a second, and let that divine energy flow through them.
For someone who truly believes, miracles don't even exist. Everything is simply the work of God.

Laura Hayes74 said:@samting: without getting into any "major surgeries," you might get maybe a year or so out of it, depending on how things play out and just how effective those temporary fixes end up being.
If you go the route of "serious operations," the goal is obviously a longer lifespan—aiming for those double digits. But don't let this seemingly obvious or "simple" choice fool you; the reality is way more complicated, and there's a massive chance you just end up spending years bouncing between hospitals and operating rooms only to face an inevitable ending that’s much harder to deal with.

@armagedon: I've realized firsthand just how much of a mental game this all is. And look, I'm not disputing that; you have to be strong and determined and constantly push yourself forward, otherwise nothing really matters. But where I disagree is with this whole "coward vs. warrior" narrative. Personally, I don't think there's anything honorable about a guy trying to fight a wildfire with a handheld fan when he's got a tank of rocket fuel sitting right next to him to burn through it in a second.😁 Okay, it's a bit of a goofy analogy, but it captures exactly what I'm getting at.

There’s always hope, no matter how much of a mess things get! Your example is spot on, but even then, you still hold onto hope for life regardless of how brutal it becomes... using the rocket fuel is just a faster, more straightforward way to get there.

I think you’re looking at this all wrong. You aren't entering a battle where you're meant to "slowly burn out"—you’re fighting for your very existence. That means you fight the fire head-on!

If we're being real, sure, losing is a possibility. Dying a painful death is always on the table. But if your will to live is stronger than that fear or the prospect of death itself, then no matter what happens, you're the one who wins.

Laura Hayes74 said:Thanks for all the input, everyone.

To those of you saying you’d fight to the bitter end regardless of the circumstances, I’ve got one question for you. Do you honestly believe you could actually keep that promise when the moment truly hits? Is that something you say because you genuinely feel you have that kind of grit, or did you see someone else pull off something similar that inspired you? (And I’m not talking about Susan Lewis2, if you catch my drift.) Are you actually prepared to just go to bed and spend every single minute staring at a blank white wall for, say, the next year? I know I’m probably being a bit intense with this question, but I just want to push you guys to think a little deeper about what you're saying. It’s easy to talk a big game and convince yourself you’re made of steel, but that illusion tends to shatter right when you need it most.

Also, a quick question for the whole group:
How would you even begin to share a thought like this with your family? I think my parents are pretty level-headed and they’d eventually get it, but I can't see any way to bring it up without causing a massive scene. The initial shock would just wreck them and they wouldn't be able to think straight; I'd be doing more harm than good just by opening my mouth, and since everything is still so theoretical right now, I’m not sure if it's even worth the fallout.

Look, it’s all mental. If you decide in your head that you’re going the distance no matter what and that you won't quit, your chances of pulling through increase fiftyfold.
I’ve been through something similar. Your situation is way more intense, but no matter how much it hurt, I remember having just one thought on loop: no giving up. Tomorrow is a new day, a new fight... I just kept pushing forward.
The whole thing lasted about a month, but in the end, it felt like it passed in the blink of an eye. I don't know if you can relate, but all that pain and suffering actually gives you the strength to endure the day, the hour, the minute...
I'll say it again: it’s all in your head. You need to realize as soon as possible that trying a second time—no matter how much easier or painless it seems—carries a massive weight of agony, suffering, and above all, a crushing disappointment in yourself in that split second before you take your own life.

Ask yourself: do you want to die a coward, or do you want to die a fighter? I think you get the point.👍

edit:
I wanted to respond to what Metropolitan said: "I just want your life to go by with as little suffering as possible and as many beautiful moments as you can find."

Forget about a "beautiful life" full of nice moments if you end up hating yourself at the finish line!
Sure, life is made of beautiful moments, that's true, but you have to fight for them first and foremost!
What good is a beautiful moment if you know you're eventually going to end it all like a coward?
In my opinion, a fighter's final breath, even if it lasts only a second, is worth more than an entire lifetime spent chasing "minimal suffering and nice moments."

neonscout5 said:True power belongs to the man who can master both fear and clarity. If he lets his own influence blind him, he’ll stay stuck in those lower vibrations forever. But once you conquer your own ego, you finally become a man of true wisdom. That’s how Don Juan would put it.

Based on that logic, how would you define what actual power is?

If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't throw in the towel. I’d fight to live even if every single second felt like pure agony... I’d go through every surgery and give everything I had just to beat this thing!

I get that you want to make the most of whatever time you have left, but really think about what kind of life that actually is—one spent constantly running away from your illness...
It doesn't matter whether you get one more year or ten; what good is all that beauty if, deep down, you know you folded and ran away from your own personal cross to bear?

No matter how inevitable things seem, or how much pain you endure until the very end, if you fight like a lion, you'll walk away with your head held high. Your final breath won't be a defeat—it'll be a victory! 👍

Drew Perez said:Exactly. Look, having 200 people watching a game at home is actually a decent turnout—it's like when the Wildcats have 2,000 fans in the stands.
It’s kind of ridiculous to act surprised. You’ve got millions of people in the US claiming they support major teams like the Yankees (or just look at the population of NYC), yet the average attendance at Central Park is barely 3,000, and the guys playing in the local parks get maybe 300. If you try to calculate that percentage, it's honestly embarrassing how low it goes.
I mean, that doesn't excuse the Armada edition, which isn't nearly as good as their stuff from earlier this season (it feels more like last year's quality), but hey, it's a Wednesday, the opponent is boring, and the club is stuck mid-table with nowhere to go... nothing surprising there.
But here's a question for the Cleveland locals: when was the last time Santa Monica was actually packed? I honestly can't remember, and it's not even that huge a stadium for a city like Cleveland. It's not like there weren't opportunities either—cup finals, heated derbies against the big rivals—but you still see maybe 6,000 or 7,000 people, and half of those are visiting fans.

Basically, none of it makes sense. Our whole scene, the sport, the league, the country—everything is just a mess. 😁

Where are you getting that from? Please, tell me. Even if you look at the number of people from the South living in NYC, there's easily at least 350,000 of them.
And don't get cocky with us; you all know this is just temporary hype and you'll be right back to your old ways soon enough.
http://img48.imageshack.us/i/hajos00722pv.jpg/

It’s obvious how light and life emerged from pure darkness and stagnation. It’s a pretty incredible transformation for the better.

For whom? God, the Absolute, the Universe, eternity... it doesn't really matter.
If we only look at these concepts through a strictly human lens, we’re never going to grasp the deeper levels. Just try to imagine a reality where "good" and "evil" don't even exist. Try looking at the world through that perspective for a second.

So, a day is just the absence of night, just as night is the absence of day.

The technical definition would be more like: daytime is when a specific part of the planet is exposed to the sun's light...
Circular definitions like that don't actually explain anything, nor do they help anyone truly understand what's happening.

casualmaker13 said:Power is basically just the flip side of helplessness. That’s pretty much the whole definition right there.
It works just like anything else we talk about in terms of dualities—you know, positive versus negative, light against dark, yin and yang, all that stuff that keeps the world spinning.
I guess you could try throwing in other concepts like knowledge versus ignorance, possibility versus impossibility, or fear versus courage, but honestly? Adding more layers just muddies the water and drags the topic out further.
And it probably won't actually help us get any closer to figuring out what power really is...😉

Isn't that just a circular definition, though? If you claim power is just the opposite of being helpless, I still don't actually know what "power" means until I understand what "helplessness" is.

wearyhawk83 said:For someone who doesn't know how to actually use their brain, I'd say that's a pretty spot-on take. Basically, saying we're no different from animals.

So, tell me: what's stopping me today from pausing, thinking things through, and deciding to act exactly how I want to—completely defying the way my past circumstances "built" me?

Sure, maybe a massive crisis could knock me off course, and if I've never bothered to work on self-control or objective reasoning, then yeah, I'd be stuck.

But if I've actually put in the work to develop those qualities, then 80% of the time, I am absolutely going to act out of true freedom.

And I'm not talking about some fake, subjective nonsense either. I mean real, genuine freedom. It's the greatest gift we've got.

We don't need superpowers for this; we just need an open mind, some discipline, regular practice with our self-control, and a decent radar for seeing things exactly as they actually are.

The whole concept of "reason" is incredibly subjective.
I mean, in certain cultures, blood feuds are still considered perfectly rational.
Don't tell me they aren't, because to them, they are. And just like a blood feud makes sense to them, you and I have our own set of beliefs that feel totally logical to us, even if they seem crazy to someone else.
In other words, we build our entire "rational" world on such a fuzzy, undefined foundation.

So, what exactly stops me today from pausing, stepping back, and choosing to act exactly how I want—completely breaking free from the way my past experiences "shaped" me?

Nothing. The only real limit is how much you're actually capable of thinking, deciding, and acting outside the mental cage you built based on everything that's happened to you before.
But hey, I'm sure you'll bring up "reason" again.

Maybe a situation gets heavy enough that it overrides me. No amount of self-control or objective judgment could save me, since I've never really worked on those skills.

I'll give you that—practicing those things would definitely sharpen your ability.

That said, if I've put in at least a little work to develop those traits, then in 80% of cases, I'll definitely be acting out of true freedom.

The kind of freedom you think you know. The kind that lives entirely inside your own head.

And I don't need any supernatural powers for that—just an open mind, some consistency, practicing my self-control, and having a decent radar for what the actual, objective reality is.

I didn't see anyone here talking about "supernatural" powers.
An open mind—is that based on reason?
Self-control—that's probably the one area where we actually have some influence, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
As for the "objective" or "actual" state of things? From a human perspective, nothing is truly objective.