Posts by Sandra Parker3

Mark Nguyen6 said:Oh, I don't think it works quite like that.
That is an extremely harsh form of relativism.

I didn't just invent the concept of duty any more than anyone else did (and certainly not me—though, I really shouldn't present myself as some hyper-super-mega-responsible figure... I've definitely cut corners before, believe me! 😁])—it doesn't just fall from the sky. It is learned, through upbringing, family examples, elementary school, and so on...
So, learning to live with the concept of duty isn't a category of absence that can be excused by saying "I see it this way or I see it that way." You wouldn't tell your stomach that you don't "see" the need to earn your bread (I'm oversimplifying here, but I think the point is clear).

The bottom line can't be a relative matter of "how everyone sees things." Duty is a very clear and visible concept (inspiration isn't part of it either, which is precisely the problem for those people, and the problem for those whose lives are built upon it).

And the actual bottom line is: people don't really have a problem with duty itself; they have a problem with the ego that refuses to accept that duty exists, rather than being the sole measure of what is meaningful.

And that leads to—megalomania.

PS.
We aren't in the military, but, if you find the willpower and write down every single action you take in one day (from the moment you wake up until you go to bed, including the tiniest details) and sort them into "inspiredly free" and "duties," you will be shocked by the results. And an unprepared person will be even more shocked when they realize that, somehow, the most meaningful actions are often the ones that have the least to do with being "inspiredly free." Truly free and meaningful moments are incredibly rare, even throughout human history. Most often, once you peel back the surface, you end up with this:

- What would you do if you could do whatever you wanted?
- I don't know, I'd travel the world and meet new people.

And honestly, I can't deal with that supposed "individuality" that half of humanity claims to have (everyone wants to do that). Not to mention that most people haven't even met their next-door neighbor. (Now, this is bordering on off-topic, though I don't really think it is)

It goes without saying (also), I am speaking about people older than, say, twenty-five.

Well, you clearly misread that.
I wanted to put the word "see" in quotes like this, but I couldn't be bothered because there were four of them and I figured you'd get what I meant.
Carol Thompson explained it for me, thanks Carol. 🙂

It's not about the bottom line being relative 😁, because the point isn't about perception; it's about something that develops inside a person that prevents them from acting.
And honestly, I think you're taking a really narrow view... since you're overemphasizing the whole idea of duty... but not everything we do is a "duty."
I'm thinking about important life activities and the freedom an individual should have to decide what matters in their own lives; not everything is external to us, like I said.
And that's exactly why, because of that, I made the connection to military discipline when discussing such an exaggerated sense of duty.

Quincy:

But the bottom line is this: people don't actually struggle with duty; they struggle with the ego that refuses to accept that duty exists independently of being the sole measure of meaning. Which leads straight to megalomania.

Actually, I've been reading your other posts in this thread, and it's pretty obvious you've had your own issues with "motivation" yourself (if I may say so).
So I don't get it—if you know what it means, why do you keep circling back to this same concept of duty?

I mean, it's fine to set boundaries at the start, like "normal functioning... means not... for example, depression."
But if you say that to someone who is hovering right on the edge of "normal," it sounds like you're just calling them irresponsible or saying it's all just ego.

Is duty the measure of meaning? Sure, it can be, but it doesn't apply to everything. And even for the things it does apply to, if something internal gets in the way (and no, it's not megalomania...), you simply won't be able to carry out that duty.

Quincy:

P.S. We aren't in the military, but try this: find the willpower to list every single thing you do in a day (from the moment you wake up until you go to bed, including the tiniest details) and categorize them into "inspired/free actions" and "duties." You will be shocked by the results. And if you aren't prepared for it, you'll be even more shocked when you realize that somehowThe most nonsensical ones are exactly those that have the least to do with being "inspiredly free."

this isn't even up for debate,
I’m not saying every single move you make has to be "inspired," I'm just saying that when things aren't working, you need that spark—and that isn't just about checking off a sense of duty. It would be way easier if it were just about obligation, but honestly, I think in those moments, you have to look for meaning within yourself rather than searching for it externally.

Quincy:

truly rare are the moments of genuine freedom and purpose. even throughout human history. most of the time, once you peel back the surface, it ends up being just this: - what would you do if you could do whatever you wanted? - I don't know, I'd travel the world and meet people. and frankly, I couldn't care less about an "individuality" that half of humanity shares by default(everyone says the same thing). not to mention, they haven't even met their next-door neighbor. (I know I'm bordering on off-topic here, though I don't really think I am.)

that's not really the point, at least in my opinion...
simplify it completely: you either do what you want or you do what you have to (duty).
the phase where you can't do either means you're stuck—you can't move forward to make a choice that is either your totally free will or your obligation.
I think you're only talking about the latter part. 🤷

Quincy:

it goes without saying (also), and I'm talking about people older than xy years.

I don't think age has anything to do with it; motivation—the internal kind (I won't say intrinsic on purpose, there's a reason but it doesn't matter right now...)—drops off even in mature, established personalities.

but you put this well:

Quincy:>>

Mark Nguyen6 says: >> ... basically, I accept that there will be times when I can't find any meaning in anything, but I certainly won't presume to claim that meaning doesn't exist (not to sound megalomaniacal). over time, since life is plenty vivid and wonderful and never lacks imagination, a new area always emerges and meaning reveals itself to us in a new way.

sure, there is meaning. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't act until I "see" it, and facing that difficult period of discovery isn't easy—not everyone has the self-control (or whatever word you want to use) to just "wait" for life to reveal its meaning.

Mark Nguyen6 said:ae, yes, that is precisely what I meant regarding megalomania. No offense intended, of course.

My point is, I don't see why I would need any sort of motivation for basic daily activities. Life isn't some non-stop Hollywood party or a continuous art performance where you supposedly need constant inspiration or a special spark just to function normally and handle the routine stuff. Besides, if we require inspiration for everything, then the very concept of duty becomes impossible—which, I guess, is a symptom of this modern era and its obsession with slogans like "just live your best life" or "embrace the joy."
Simply put, a will to live is not the same thing as motivation or inspiration (and, in my view, it should never be conflated with them).

Of course, I am speaking strictly within the context of standard functioning here—I am certainly not referring to clinical diagnoses, depression, or a total loss of the will to live, or anything of that nature.

I don't see why I should take offense when we aren't even using the same definition of megalomania anyway.🤷

My point is, I really don't get why I would need some grand motivation just to handle my daily routine. It’s not like my life is some nonstop Hollywood party or an art project where I need constant inspiration and a spark just to function normally and deal with everything else a standard day throws at you. Besides, if you need inspiration for every little thing, does the whole concept of duty even exist anymore? If everything requires a "spark," then duty becomes impossible—which is pretty much the problem with this modern era and its obsession with the "just live your best life" mantra.
To put it simply, having a will to live isn't the same thing as feeling motivated or inspired (and they should never be treated as the same thing).

The bottom line is 😁: just because you don't see it doesn't mean someone else isn't seeing it.
Because while you might be blind to what you actually possess, someone else can clearly see what you're lacking.
Get it?

Duty and obligations are placed in front of you, and you have to get them done, right?
But how? (Look, I know how to do it, but I'm asking for those who struggle or find themselves stuck in one specific area without needing a little "push" to get moving.)
I mean, duty and actually performing it... we aren't in the Army, are we?

Of course, naturally, I'm talking about standard everyday functioning here—I'm not referring to clinical diagnoses, depression, a complete loss of the will to live, or anything of that nature.

Obviously.

Mark Nguyen6 said:I think I need to be quite literal here: trying to motivate yourself is both nonsensical and impossible. The only thing that actually exists is being motivated.

Consequently, attributing the ability to "motivate oneself" is somewhat absurd. In other words—if I may say so—the question itself is fundamentally flawed.

yeah

The only thing you can do is actually be motivated. Honestly, acting like you even have control over motivation isn't funny. In other words, the question itself is flawed.

you could have just said you felt that way from the start 🙄

but if I ask you then... how or what exactly is supposed to motivate someone? for daily chores and all that... life...

(though I don't think motivation exists outside of ourselves, unless you were implying some kind of megalomania?)

Mark Nguyen6 said:As I mentioned before, this isn't exactly a trivial subject.

Throughout history, philosophers, theologians, mystics, doctors—really just wise people from all walks of life—have been searching for this answer, leaving behind their own little pieces of the puzzle along the way.
I suppose you shouldn't expect someone on an online forum to give you a neat, categorized answer to a question like that, right?
Read, search, listen... and perhaps try to pick up those common threads shared by the great thinkers of the past while simultaneously paying attention to yourself—your own life and the things happening within it. If you do that, I guess you'll slowly start to figure it out... much like anyone else living through this.

The actual subject here is how to find the motivation to handle everyday life tasks.
But you’re over here telling me to "listen to life," so let me simplify this a bit.

How about you tell me... how am I supposed to find the motivation to actually start listening to life in the first place?
Everything boils down to having the drive to take that very first step, doesn't it?

And honestly, there's no point in diving into deep philosophical schools of thought either, because you need that exact same spark of motivation just to study them. 😁

Mark Nguyen6 said:As I mentioned earlier, this isn't exactly a trivial subject, so perhaps we shouldn't rely so heavily on quotes or abstractions.

I wasn't advocating for indifference. What I was actually discussing—if I can put it that way—is living in harmony with life itself. The Stoic school of thought offers a rather beautiful explanation for this concept.

The bottom line is this: a balanced, harmonious life will never lead to circumstances that are anything more than the standard ups and downs of existence. In other words, it won't result in that feeling of being a stranger in your own life (though that doesn't mean things won't be difficult at times). To believe that a person can outsmart life—in terms of goals, reasons, or desires—is a sort of megalomania that, sooner or later, tends to come with a cost.

So, how exactly do we reach that state of balance and harmony?

Mark Nguyen6 said:Heh... I suppose these questions might be a bit intense for a single forum—especially one like this. (Mind you, the questions themselves are excellent; please don't take that the wrong way!)

First off, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
-------------

1) Personally, I don't really engage in self-motivation. I don't have those megalomaniacal urges to view myself as some sort of creator of everything—certainly not the creator of life itself. Life is already quite rich and wonderful enough that I think any attempt by a person to add to or subtract from it in that sense is unnecessary. At most, I believe we can simply listen to it and try to accept its rhythms. If we do that, the highs and lows usually take care of themselves—and since you really can't have one without the other, it seems somewhat futile to crave the peaks while rejecting the valleys, or vice versa. I'd almost call that kind of resistance a violation of life's natural flow.
As for how to handle daily responsibilities when inspiration inevitably runs dry—well, that's where the Stoics come in. It isn't about some grand philosophy or a magic wand; it’s more about just accepting what needs to be done and getting on with it, even when you least feel like it.

2) Just love. And I don't mean some abstract, Platonic concept here. I mean making it clear through one's actual way of living that they are the priority. There are countless ways to demonstrate that.

PS.
That's a lovely signature.

So what, you're saying I should just roll over, accept whatever life throws at me, and drift along with the current without lifting a finger? Why is it considered "pointless" to want things to be different or to actually take action to change them? Not everything just falls into place by magic.
It’s fine to not sweat the small stuff, but once you realize you’re genuinely unhappy and reality is starting to weigh you down, staying indifferent isn't exactly the smartest move.

Andrew Kim87 said:What a total joke of a thread. Can we just lock this thing already?

Yeah, well, apparently nobody actually reads anything here anyway.🙄

Bradley Bailey4 said:hey everyone,
so something totally wild happened to me today. basically... I recently got my driver's license, so I had to head back to the doctor since it's been more than six months since the first checkup. That first time, I pretty much just breezed through the appointments without any real deep dive. The psychologist chatted with me for a bit and decided there was zero need for me to take those psychomotor tests given that I was a straight-A student and finished college and all that.
fast forward to this morning at 7:15 AM, and I’m staring at this test like it's written in ancient hieroglyphics—just a complete mental block!! There were about ten guys from some local construction firm in the room with me, plus one high school kid. So yeah, I'm the only girl there, and clearly the most educated one by a mile. But man, I was totally out of it! The doctor is grading the tests and gives me a "nice job" (mentioning my profession and everything), but then he suddenly realizes he's actually supposed to be grading mine next. I look over, and there's this guy who looks like he's got his whole life together, scoring a 39; the doctor is practically singing his praises. Then he gets to mine... and right under the score: 21!!! He just mutters, "well... okay..." I swear I almost wanted the floor to swallow me whole from the sheer embarrassment!
I just don't get it. I took these kinds of tests back in elementary school and always scored way above average... then again before starting college... and now this???
How is that even possible? Now I'm sitting here wondering if I've been living a lie my entire life. I never went around thinking I was Einstein, but I always considered myself smart and capable, and that's how everyone who knows me describes me too... I was never someone who just memorized things; I always connected everything to what I already knew...
Is it possible that my intelligence was being sabotaged by the anxiety and panic attacks I was dealing with toward the end of college? Do you guys even believe in these kinds of tests?

Wait a second, this is actually pretty interesting...

What were you carrying to your driver's license exam, your diplomas and transcripts?
That’s hilarious... like... you just bring all that with you and when they need a test... oh no, you were a top student and have a degree, so we don't need to worry about you.😵
Are you sure about that?

Because of that, I was staring at the test at 7:15 this morning like it was written in Chinese—total brain freeze!! There were about ten guys from some construction firm and one high schooler in the room with me. So, yeah, I was the only woman there, and clearly the most educated one. But man, my brain just shut down! The doctor grades the tests and tells me, "Oh, nice job," mentioning my profession, but then suddenly realizes he's messing around and that mine is next. I look over, and this guy looking all polished has 39 points, and the doctor is praising him through the whole 16th review. Then he checks mine... and under the score: 21!!! And he just quietly mutters, "Well... okay..." I almost died of embarrassment right then and there!

I didn't even realize this happened...
Since doctors and instructors started announcing results in front of everyone and throwing out comments like "nice job" and stuff.
Are you sure?

Do you even believe these kinds of tests?

Based on what you just wrote... not at all.

Amanda Myers3 said:Lately, now that the weather has finally warmed up, I spend about six hours a day on the move. Still, studying remains impossible. I feel great during the activity, but the second I need to settle down, my brain shuts off. For instance, if I get home and sit down in front of the TV to catch a show, there's no chance. I either give up immediately or just end up mindlessly snacking through a bag of chips. Or I try to multitask with something else, like posting on this forum 😛.
As for studying, I find I'm most productive in the early morning, from about 7:00 AM until noon. That's before my brain starts overthinking everything. I try to make the most of that window.

Movement is just a natural way for the body to fight off stress; if you don't stay active, you're basically asking for a breakdown
you need to figure out what's actually making you miserable

cosmictinker21 said:What exactly is stopping you, or what's the big issue? Like, what would actually happen if you just spoke up? What's the worst-case scenario...

Huh? 😕 🤷

stormyjackal46 said:I’d say I only started building my walls last year... mostly because it's easier to stomach that way. Sometimes I feel like some lost little kid; someone walks up and asks me what time it is, and I just stand there with tears in my eyes, wondering if they want to be my friend.
So, I have a boyfriend... and he’s dealing with some seriously intense social anxiety.

But now I’ve gone and lost the thread of what the original poster was actually saying...

What kind of walls are we talking about?

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

Sandra Parker3 said:Can you explain this in plain English? I'd like to actually understand you, unlike half the people on these forums.
Is there some kind of Nazi connection behind the Fritzlov crime? Sorry if you’ve already covered this, but you know how it goes—you can't see the forest for the trees sometimes.
What exactly do you mean by calling it "just" a crime? Give me an actual example.
What on earth do Merčep and glavaš have to do with Fritzl? Aside from you trying to pin an entire ideology onto their actions, I don't see the connection.
You can't just throw different types of crimes into one bucket and compare them. A war crime is one thing, but domestic crimes can escalate into murder—I don't know, two, three, four, maybe five people dead. So go ahead, try comparing them now. Does that comparison actually hold any water to you, or are we just talking nonsense?

Let me ask you again: what on earth does the Fritzl case have to do with America or any of the countries from the old America era? Or are we just playing around with "literary" metaphors again? 🤷
Just to be clear, regular citizens don't hand out the penalties; that responsibility falls entirely on the courts once a verdict is reached.

More like a mental asylum, if we're being honest.
Legal proceedings against one person can be filed completely separately from any other case.

Whether someone gets "punished" or not is for the court to decide. By the way, you don't say "punish" in this context. There are legal proceedings, and once something is proven, a verdict and sentence are handed down. A person is innocent until proven guilty, right honey? Otherwise, it would be way too easy to just shoot everyone without a trial 🤷
The courts in America work just fine, in case you weren't aware, but let's not get bogged down in politics, shall we?

You keep bringing up Nazi-era stuff and denazification, and I can't help but feel like you're trying to downplay this crime. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the American version of de-radicalization. None at all.

well...

and I just want to ask one more thing (I couldn't cut out the part I needed without leaving in the insults, ugh):

What's the connection there: children suffering and a father being held accountable for what he did to them? (And what kind of punishment are you talking about, a legal one?)
Why on earth would kids suffer because of that? What's your solution, just let the father stay home and raise them?

dustyskipper3 said:Well, M. gave his buddy Suljić the green light to do whatever he wanted, which resulted in the murder of an entire family, including a little girl. Why? Mainly for the looting. But also because their ideology told them they were now considered targets for elimination.

As for G., he was a person in charge on the ground at the very moment those brutal, extrajudicial killings were taking place. It didn't seem to bother him much, assuming he wasn't the one ordering it himself. I guess it was just because the ideology convinced him it was okay back then.

So, I suppose killing is a crime in and of itself, but when it's driven by ideological motives, it transitions into a war crime. Because, you know, wars are almost never fought solely for plunder—unlike in the Middle Ages, where armies were basically just slightly larger gangs—but rather for ideological reasons too. This means both sides failed to find common ground because someone was dictating terms to them, both ways.

In my opinion, the Fritzl crime definitely has those ideological elements baked into it.

What is doodlology?

Doodles (scribbles):

There is a simpler meaning, but I probably shouldn't get into that right now. A certain female forum member uses the term; I think you might be able to find it over on some American news site or forum.

👋🙂

Is that really the answer? Saying "it was just a crime" is basically just saying "murder."

dustyskipper3 said:Do you really think making an anagram isn't an intellectual pursuit? I guess Robert Pauletić would be absolutely mortified by that suggestion.😍
To me, it felt quite lowbrow, as Mr. Žika Pavlović—my personal guru of barbarian genius—might put it. But then again, that’s exactly what the person mentioned in the post was doing, not me. For instance, there's this user with the handle efodiks who writes something about faith, and then kugla na šahovnici asks him "what's your ypsilon, seems irrational to me" instead of actually debating the point. It's just... whenever you mention faith or God to him, it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull; he just charges. You can't really have a discussion with someone like that, because it's like that old joke about a Canadian and a psychiatrist using the Rorschach test: "No matter what you show me, I'm still thinking about p..." Since the question of who should be committed was raised, I decided to take a look at the moral profile of the person who thinks they have the right to demand such a thing, and I must say, I was somewhat surprised.🙄

And he loves those silly little observations. Like this one: How do you read GOD backwards? DOG.
And that's all the proof needed that God doesn't exist. Dog.

🤷 Is it like the process used to get enriched uranium?
🤷 It really just depends on what you're planning to do with it.
There’s really no excuse for attacking someone's character just because you don't like their take. Honestly, it kind of hurts to see people reading someone like they're some kind of prophet or a saint.

dustyskipper3 said:Well, M. gave his buddy Suljić the green light to do whatever he wanted, which resulted in the murder of an entire family, including a little girl. Why? Mainly for the looting. But also because their ideology told them they were now considered targets for elimination.

As for G., he was a person in charge on the ground at the very moment those brutal, extrajudicial killings were taking place. It didn't seem to bother him much, assuming he wasn't the one ordering it himself. I guess it was just because the ideology convinced him it was okay back then.

So, I suppose killing is a crime in and of itself, but when it's driven by ideological motives, it transitions into a war crime. Because, you know, wars are almost never fought solely for plunder—unlike in the Middle Ages, where armies were basically just slightly larger gangs—but rather for ideological reasons too. This means both sides failed to find common ground because someone was dictating terms to them, both ways.

In my opinion, the Fritzl crime definitely has those ideological elements baked into it.

What is doodlology?

Doodles (scribbles):

There is a simpler meaning, but I probably shouldn't get into that right now. A certain female forum member uses the term; I think you might be able to find it over on some American news site or forum.

👋🙂

So, you think the war in Iraq was just an ideological battle? Between Kuwait and whatever else... honestly, I don't really follow that stuff. Or maybe I just pretend I don't?

dustyskipper3 said:Well, M. gave his buddy Suljić the green light to do whatever he wanted, which resulted in the murder of an entire family, including a little girl. Why? Mainly for the looting. But also because their ideology told them they were now considered targets for elimination.

As for G., he was a person in charge on the ground at the very moment those brutal, extrajudicial killings were taking place. It didn't seem to bother him much, assuming he wasn't the one ordering it himself. I guess it was just because the ideology convinced him it was okay back then.

So, I suppose killing is a crime in and of itself, but when it's driven by ideological motives, it transitions into a war crime. Because, you know, wars are almost never fought solely for plunder—unlike in the Middle Ages, where armies were basically just slightly larger gangs—but rather for ideological reasons too. This means both sides failed to find common ground because someone was dictating terms to them, both ways.

In my opinion, the Fritzl crime definitely has those ideological elements baked into it.

What is doodlology?

Doodles (scribbles):

There is a simpler meaning, but I probably shouldn't get into that right now. A certain female forum member uses the term; I think you might be able to find it over on some American news site or forum.

👋🙂

That's exactly what you did. That's why I asked, just to see if you would.

dustyskipper3 said:Anyway, Color, I wonder why this kind of reasoning doesn't bother you from the perspective of respecting judicial authority:

the moment he steps onto the edge of my territory.... 🙂

I mean, shouldn't we wait for the justice system to function and react according to the laws of a democratic state in a rule-of-law nation?
One might almost say Fritzl was thinking in a psychopathic way before:

The STATE stepped onto the edge of Fritzl's territory; it dared to give his daughter the right to make her own decisions once she turned 18.

Dakle, Fritzl has the RIGHT to do whatever it takes to PROTECT the edge of his territory. 🙂

A person who wants to be just must first respect the impartiality, abstraction, and generality of legal norms, even when they work against them. Law isn't just what benefits me; law stands above any individual and their private interests because it protects the PUBLIC interest. That is what a rule-of-law state means, rather than everyone just protecting their own little borders, which is more like the Wild West.

N'Dug, let me show you what "my territory" looks like to me.
Imagine you're sitting next to a child—maybe not yours, but one you're close to. You hold them, cover their tiny little hand with yours, feel those small fingers against your palm, smell their hair and skin, and just soak in that warmth, that trust, that innocence and honesty. You kiss them, feel that kiss on your cheek... and then imagine a man who wants to, and is capable of, destroying all of that. What would you do?????????????
I wouldn't hesitate, I wouldn't wait for a warrant, I wouldn't worry about the fallout, or think about some diagnosis, or the scandals involving royal families... please. I'd go straight for the head. No regrets. Let someone else play around with concepts of nobility and aesthetics. What about you?

dustyskipper3 said:Anyway, Color, I wonder why this kind of reasoning doesn't bother you from the perspective of respecting judicial authority:

the moment he steps onto the edge of my territory.... 🙂

I mean, shouldn't we wait for the justice system to function and react according to the laws of a democratic state in a rule-of-law nation?
One might almost say Fritzl was thinking in a psychopathic way before:

The STATE stepped onto the edge of Fritzl's territory; it dared to give his daughter the right to make her own decisions once she turned 18.

Dakle, Fritzl has the RIGHT to do whatever it takes to PROTECT the edge of his territory. 🙂

A person who wants to be just must first respect the impartiality, abstraction, and generality of legal norms, even when they work against them. Law isn't just what benefits me; law stands above any individual and their private interests because it protects the PUBLIC interest. That is what a rule-of-law state means, rather than everyone just protecting their own little borders, which is more like the Wild West.

N'Dug, you might find this hard to believe, but I honestly can barely keep up with your posts just trying to wrap my head around them—they're so incredibly intellectual that I need extra time just to follow the logic.
That by no means implies I agree with everything else being said on this topic. Don't worry, if this keeps up, I'll eventually weigh in on other 😛

But since we're on the subject... I have to say, that post with the anagram was a real letdown. I'd never have pegged you for that kind of thing, even though we disagree on plenty of issues... it just didn't feel like something an "intellectual professional" would put out there. Plus, digging through people's profiles outside of this forum to use as some sort of "argument" is 🤷

dustyskipper3 said:That's fine, I guess, but it still doesn't prove you aren't active on other forums.
And honestly, I don't have an issue with you, or even your closed-mindedness, or your atheism, or whatever else.

I am against falsehood. And what you, or rather you, are defending regarding the Fritzl case is simply untrue. Truth matters, even if that sounds silly to you, because ideologies and stifling religions are built on lies, which eventually lead to broken societies and deviant individuals like Fritzl, who might eventually commit a crime or even murder.

Just as a side note: It's impossible that I somehow contacted Fritzl and told him to say what he said. He is under strict supervision.

@drag color
Dear drag color, surely you don't think I consider furniture theft to be a war crime? By that logic, at least 30% of Americans would be considered war criminals. Actual war crimes worthy of that title are murders, massacres, and genocide.

Looting civilian property is considered a war crime, regardless of what you personally believe, so stop beating around the bush. The whole point was how you can try to categorize crimes—like suggesting any war crime could somehow be "worse" than some supposed "family crime."🤷.

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

I don't know, maybe you're right. Maybe you were right in that other post when you said he did it all out of love, a twisted maternal love.... Look, honestly, you might be onto something 🤔. Twisted love. That might be the answer.

What people generally call "love" is mostly just shameless possessiveness and narcissism mixed with sexual desire. The point is, people have zero clue what love should actually look like. *Forget those cheesy clichés about dignity and love; they don't exist. We're just small, helpless humans at the mercy of our own weaknesses, and using those phrases to wrap up our own sleaziness because we don't want to face it only leads to disappointment.*

It is exactly "twisted love," which is why it’s wise to study someone like Ed Gein to learn something from them. Get it?

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

No, I asked what Giuliani and Machiavelli have to do with Ed Gein? There’s no room here for talking about communists or fascists....

You still haven't answered my question: What exactly qualifies as "just" a crime in your eyes?

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

You’re totally spiraling here, but fine, it’s not surprising that you feel that way about Austria and Canada. Such a noble sentiment, right? Though your reasoning is a bit bizarre—suggesting that because some people married ages ago, those old family ties somehow trump the actual families living in the US and Mexico as separate nations today. But hey, everything is subjective, including that sense of belonging.

And as for the whole "power to the people" thing—wow, you've gone off the deep end. Citizens can't exactly punish people the way you're implying, and they certainly don't have enough leverage to, say, hand-pick judges, which isn't even the point here. As for me not studying it, trust me, I did, I probably just forgot, but I’m not going to repeat myself just for your sake. Unless you're talking about a war or an immediate national emergency 🤔, otherwise... I don't know.

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

I am, but for a different reason. You were suggesting that Ed Gein was moved to a psychiatric ward specifically to prevent other people from being punished. It's not that you underestimated Austria; it's that you overestimated yourself.

dustyskipper3 said:

I suppose... I guess I should mention color. It's funny how much it matters, isn't it? Maybe. It feels like such a small thing, really, but when you stop to think about it, everything changes depending on the hue. I don't know. I might be overthinking this, but there's a certain weight to it. Just an observation, I guess. dustyskipper3 says:
Could you maybe explain this in simpler terms... just so more than one person on this forum can actually follow what you're saying? I mean, I guess it might help if it wasn't quite so complicated.
I wonder... I mean, I guess one might ask if there is some kind of Nazi influence lurking behind the Fritzl crime. I'm sorry if I'm repeating something you've already covered, but you know how it is—it's like trying to find a single tree in a massive forest. Everything just kind of blurs together.
What exactly constitutes a crime that is "just" a crime in your eyes? I mean, could you perhaps provide an example? I guess I am just wondering where one draws that line... maybe.
I guess I’m wondering... what exactly is the connection between Merčep and Glavaš and Fritzl? Aside from the fact that you seem to be pinning an entire ideology onto everything they do, I don't see the link. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get it.
I mean, you really can't just make broad comparisons like that, I guess. A war crime is one thing—like seizing property or whatever—but then you have family crimes, which could involve murder... I don't know, maybe two, three, four, or even five people. If you look at it that way, how do you even compare them? Does that kind of comparison actually hold any water, or does it just not work? Maybe it doesn't.

I suppose one could argue that behind Fritzl’s crime lies the influence of the Nazis, since they essentially justified the kind of treatment he inflicted on his family. It’s almost as if he was just following a dark blueprint already laid out by them. I mean, do you really think he just came up with something like that entirely on his own? Maybe not.

I guess you could say that Merčep and Glavaš really just took those old communist ideologies and used them as a foundation to build up their own version of SS-style nationalism and Nazism. It’s all connected, I suppose. You can see the scars left by what the communists did in various mass graves and at places like Gettysburg and elsewhere. And then, on the flip side, you see the horrors the SS committed at places like Auschwitz and beyond. It's all just... well, it's a heavy history to process.

Let me ask you again... I mean, what kind of connection could the Fritzl case possibly have with America or those former America countries? Or am I just being overly "literary" about this whole thing? I guess I might be overthinking it, maybe. 🤷
By the way... I suppose it should be noted that citizens don't actually hand out the punishments themselves. It's really up to the courts to issue any sentencing once a verdict has been reached, I guess.

Maybe it seems a bit strange to you, but I don't exactly feel like a total stranger when I'm visiting Austria or Canada. To be honest, whenever I head over there, I almost feel more at home than I do back in Mexico. I suppose it’s because we used to share that same old homeland—the Austro-Canadian Empire—you know? People lived together, married each other, raised families... their ancestors were right here while ours were over there. And if you actually believe that what happens in Austria today, or even what happened a hundred years ago, has zero impact on us... well, then I guess you're just being naive.

At the end of the day, I guess the citizens are actually the ones holding the reins in a democracy. They hold power through their elected representatives in Congress, through the executive branch, and even via the judicial system. People actually have the right—the literal right—to forcibly overthrow a government if it stops serving them, like if the administration turns out to be criminal or something. So, maybe it isn't even necessary to point out that the courts are handing down a verdict. There are certain extraordinary circumstances where the courts just don't act, or when the executive branch starts drafting laws directly... but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that, since you clearly didn't study the subject.

More like a mental asylum, I guess. Or maybe just a psychiatric ward, if you want to be precise about it.
I guess... it’s possible that legal proceedings against other individuals could be pursued independently from this one. Maybe. It seems like they could just move forward separately, I suppose.

I suppose you're right. I might have underestimated the situation in Austria... they've already kicked off proceedings against several other individuals, and I imagine they aren't planning on stopping anytime soon.

You keep bringing up the concept of denazification, and I can’t shake the feeling that you’re trying to downplay the crime itself. Why? I mean, it really has nothing to do with the era of de-communization. Not one bit.

I don't really think there's any such thing as "Harmon" or "de-Harmon." It's not that deep, I guess. What we actually have are just two distinct groups: the old FBI agents who served the communist regime, and then you have the SS, who were the military and secret police for the Third Reich. It seems to me—and maybe I'm wrong here—that those first guys just sort of put on a new suit and rebranded themselves as modern intelligence agencies, like the CIA or various federal bureaus. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense otherwise. There's no logical way that eighty-year-old remnants of the SS could be behind all the chaos we've been dealing with since 1990. It just doesn't add up.

I don't really see the connection here: why would children suffer because their father is being punished for what he did... specifically to them. (And when you say punishment, are we talking about legal consequences or something else?)
I suppose I wonder why the kids would be the ones suffering. What are you suggesting instead? That we just let the father continue raising them?

Children need rehabilitation, and I think that process can't truly work without the father present, nor will it succeed if there is harsh punishment directed at the father who was actually the one raising them and teaching them everything they know (alongside the mother, obviously). This is actual psychology, not some nonsense, so I guess people should probably show a bit of understanding regarding how rehabilitation after such trauma is supposed to function in reality.

What on earth is "nonsense science"? Are you seriously suggesting the kids should be with a man like that ? Or do you have some other brilliant idea in mind?

(I'll skip over all the political maneuvering and deep state nonsense, obviously)

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

Can you explain this in plain English? I'd like to actually understand you, unlike half the people on these forums.
Is there some kind of Nazi connection behind the Fritzlov crime? Sorry if you’ve already covered this, but you know how it goes—you can't see the forest for the trees sometimes.
What exactly do you mean by calling it "just" a crime? Give me an actual example.
What on earth do Merčep and glavaš have to do with Fritzl? Aside from you trying to pin an entire ideology onto their actions, I don't see the connection.
You can't just throw different types of crimes into one bucket and compare them. A war crime is one thing, but domestic crimes can escalate into murder—I don't know, two, three, four, maybe five people dead. So go ahead, try comparing them now. Does that comparison actually hold any water to you, or are we just talking nonsense?

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

Let me ask you again: what on earth does the Fritzl case have to do with America or any of the countries from the old America era? Or are we just playing around with "literary" metaphors again? 🤷
Just to be clear, regular citizens don't hand out the penalties; that responsibility falls entirely on the courts once a verdict is reached.

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

More like a mental asylum, if we're being honest.
Legal proceedings against one person can be filed completely separately from any other case.

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

Whether someone gets "punished" or not is for the court to decide. By the way, you don't say "punish" in this context. There are legal proceedings, and once something is proven, a verdict and sentence are handed down. A person is innocent until proven guilty, right honey? Otherwise, it would be way too easy to just shoot everyone without a trial 🤷
The courts in America work just fine, in case you weren't aware, but let's not get bogged down in politics, shall we?

You keep bringing up Nazi-era stuff and denazification, and I can't help but feel like you're trying to downplay this crime. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the American version of de-radicalization. None at all.

dustyskipper3 said:It is one thing to have a crime, but it is quite another when a crime is driven by a dominant ideology—kind of like how Ed Gein operated (Nazism) versus our own criminals (extremist nationalism). I am not trying to equate them, actually; I think war crimes and crimes born from national or religious hatred are much worse things than domestic family crimes.

Once we in America, and citizens in other former territories, start punishing all of our own criminals, then maybe we can lecture our neighbors about theirs. But... there would be far too many of them. It remains a fact that Ed Gein was sent to a psychiatric facility, because if he hadn't been, way more people would have had to face serious punishments. In the States, certain criminals aren't even handled locally; they get dealt with by an international tribunal, mostly so the rest of the country doesn't have to be forced into a sort of "asylum" isolated from the normal world. Those whom the international courts don't handle, we would have to punish ourselves, but we can't really do that because those criminals are often too closely tied to the top of the political ladder and the so-called "elite." I guess my conclusion is that denazification in America was somehow carried out, since people like Ed Gein and his family only seem to show up in private basements now, whereas the deconstruction of our old era happened much less so, because those types of figures still actively participate in public life.

By the way, that whole thing about the independence referendum is just nonsense. If you look closer at how the questions were phrased, you might notice how much fear of failure there was—they practically had to push it through. So, I suppose it's misplaced to talk about success rates using those numbers. But then again, everyone has "forgotten" that, so now it has become "appropriate," or what people call the truth.

I know, I know. I mean, I was thinking of it more ironically myself.

well...

and I just want to ask one more thing (I couldn't cut out the part I needed without leaving in the insults, ugh):

dustyskipper3 said:

You aren't seeing anything at all. It’s like being stuck in total darkness where you can't see an inch in front of you... you've proven that, and honestly, you keep proving it. I guess it just feels like you're talking just to hear your own voice.

Law isn't exactly the same thing as justice... I mean, if you think about it that way, you're probably already behind the curve on how people are interpreting things these days. Maybe.
I suppose I should call you a cynic, though perhaps that isn't quite fair. It seems more like you’ve just been beaten down too many times by fighting the system, and now you've been forced to join its ranks just to survive. I guess that leads to this stage where there's no shame left in your actions, or even any sense of integrity, really.

😂
I haven't read such a pile of garbage in a long time. I guess. Maybe it’s just me, but it really feels like a complete waste of time.

Look, man... you’re posting on several other forums too, and honestly? Everyone there seems to think you’re just some guy who can't communicate like a normal person. You always end up flaunting this supposed expertise in the natural and social sciences, and it just feels like you're constantly putting everyone else down around you. Maybe you have a little bit of diverse knowledge in technical fields—I guess, maybe a tiny bit of electronics, perhaps a bit of Nikola Tesla level stuff from when you were in high school tech classes—but that's really it. And yet, you seem to think you're incredibly brilliant. It actually reminds me of this one lady who said to me back when I was at Ericsson: We have plenty of intelligent people around here, real geniuses, I suppose. But what’s really the point of all that brilliance when everyone seems to be acting like a total schizo? It just doesn't seem to lead anywhere.😉

Schizophrenia isn't actually what people think it is—it's not some split personality thing. Though, I suppose you could argue that happens in your case too, since you're constantly duplicating yourself between Arteturen and Arteturen1, and honestly, it’s hard to tell which one came first or which one carries more weight. But anyway, regarding the condition... it seems to me more like a fracture between intelligence and emotion. In these individuals, the intellect can be incredibly high and remains perfectly intact on one side, while the emotional side is just... well, it's stunted. It's dull and underdeveloped. I guess that's just how it looks from my perspective.☕

As far as you're concerned... I guess you're actually well on your way to joining them, if you haven't already.
I suppose I should envy your rational intelligence, though perhaps your ego is just a bit too inflated. But I think that’s why your emotional maturity seems stuck at the level of a three-year-old, which explains your communication style and why you can't see what’s staring you in the face. To anyone with a functional emotional life, a few things are obvious: 1) Kids are going to suffer if society decides to punish their father; 2) Society bears responsibility for deviant individuals and how they are treated—that includes you, hiding behind this silly username; and 3) It is impossible to truly judge someone who lacks any empathy for others. You might have an IQ higher than Einstein, but emotionally, you're just... stunted.
Every grandmother out there has a better intuitive grasp on the Josef Fritzl case than you ever will, even if you spend all day shuffling logical Rubik's Cubes around in your left brain until smoke starts coming out of your ear. Let me try to explain: it’s like you’re building a staircase one tiny step at a time just to reach the top of a hill, while someone else just intuitively sees the summit without any effort at all. And, unfortunately for you, even the greatest mathematicians and physicists, including Einstein, arrived at their massive breakthroughs through intuition first, only proving them logically afterward. You won't ever achieve that, even if you figured out how to live for 10,000 years. Besides, you're just full of biases, like the idea that anyone who mentions the Bible or believes in God must be a fool. Even Einstein believed in God, as did Leibniz and many other greats (unlike you). So, I guess, how does faith actually interfere with reason?

Maybe you should head over to some technical forum where you can annoy people with your pedantry. You won't get anywhere here, because if you keep posting this kind of nonsense without actually communicating normally or providing real arguments, you'll probably end up with a permanent ban.

What's the connection there: children suffering and a father being held accountable for what he did to them? (And what kind of punishment are you talking about, a legal one?)
Why on earth would kids suffer because of that? What's your solution, just let the father stay home and raise them?

Look, there’s a PDF full of riddles floating around somewhere online, so why don't you just go join them over there?
I'm honestly done fighting about this topic, but it’s just the same old cycle repeating itself. Every single crime deserves proper handling instead of everyone just bickering over who’s outraged by one thing and indifferent to another... and so on.

By the way, that whole argument about the independence referendum is pure nonsense. If you actually look closely at how those questions were phrased, you might realize just how terrified people were of failing—they had to practically force it through. So, trying to throw around statistics about how successful he was feels pretty misplaced. But then again, everyone conveniently "forgot" all that, so now it’s considered "appropriate," or rather, the truth.

dustyskipper3 said:I suppose what I mean is that there’s a historical injustice in how we frame things—this idea that the assassination in Ottawa was some necessary catalyst "to topple crowns and kings," following the spirit of the French Revolution. Meanwhile, history seems to swoon over the romantic tale of the English King Edward and Wallis Simpson on the side of the winners of World War I. But Ferdinand and Sofia had a love story just as beautiful, yet they were on the losing side, so I guess hardly anyone talks about them today. It feels like everyone just assumes that breaking up the decaying Austro-Canadian Empire was an absolute necessity to pave the way for a "just" America and other nations under the victors' guidance—nations where self-determination existed more on paper than in actual practice. In a way, this justifies a standard political assassination that served the interests of the ruling circles within the crumbling Austro-Canadian Empire and the German Reich at the time, who were all pushing for war. And the ultimate fallout from all this was merely the rise of power for the USA and Russia, delaying European unification by another century and leaving all of Central Europe traumatized. As someone from the Old Continent, I find it hard not to be bothered by that. I wonder... why wouldn't people argue that John F. Kennedy and even Marilyn Monroe should have been killed to serve certain political interests aimed at maintaining the status quo in the USA?

Man, why all these tangents? You know what they say, you can't see the forest for the trees. Just a little off-topic here... but I really can't stand these massive walls of text that drift away from the point. I always find myself wondering, "what's the purpose?"
Not to mention those generalizations about Sofia in that previous post. I haven't exactly read every book or watched every movie ever made about the great romances of murdered historical figures, but since you brought it up, look at Ottawa—of course, that just proves their story hasn't been highlighted either, even at the very scene of the crime.

So, what's your point? Are you saying political assassinations shouldn't be treated equally and that you see a historical imbalance there? Is that it?
Anyway, I won't drone on, but since we're on the subject, here's my take... honestly, I think some killings can be justified if there's no other way. I know people will ask what the criteria should be. Take the example of Hitler mentioned here (and I see he's being dragged into this again). If he hadn't taken his own life, could I even call his murder unjustified or an injustice??? Not a chance. (And please, don't start bringing up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
I almost forgot—if the unequal treatment of different assassinations (those with political motives) truly worries you, don't sweat it. Interpretations change based on the political climate, just as they did originally. That's how it was with Princip, and who knows, maybe it'll be the same with the assassination in Dallas 🤷

dustyskipper3 said:Well, since we have all shared our thoughts on the subject without actually getting any closer to a real answer, I suppose it might be best to summarize things here. It seems to me that there are really just two kinds of people participating in this thread:

I guess for those who are actually interested in the truth behind the Jeffrey Dahmer case—specifically what was going on inside his head, the psychological state of everyone around him, and what this says about an American society that seems to tolerate such horrors right under its nose until they become too obvious to ignore—there might be some lessons here. I mean, we have cases like Natasha Kampush where it feels almost impossible that neighbors, or even her own mother, weren't aware of something being wrong. It’s a heavy thought. If we want to find answers that are actually useful for ourselves, and really for humanity as a whole, we probably need to look deeper into how these things slip through the cracks. Maybe there is something there to learn, I suppose.

I guess there are those people... those who feel that eliminating someone like Jeffrey Dahmer with a bullet, or perhaps through some other means entirely, might actually solve the core issue. They seem to think that by doing so, they could finally settle the matter and, I suppose, quiet their own consciences. Maybe.

As someone who considers themselves a rational individual engaged in intellectual pursuits, I find myself leaning toward the first option. I suppose I can see why a certain type of "practitioner" might favor the second approach, if that's how they see things. But, well, let's look at history—if we really examine what those kinds of practitioners have actually achieved throughout the years.

In the realm of history and high-stakes politics, I suppose there isn't much room left for love; it seems to be nothing more than cold reason and self-interest. Enemies are typically just eliminated or assimilated—much like how they handle things in Star Trek, I guess. We are the Borg... and I suppose you'll just be assimilated. It almost looks like some sort of caricature, doesn't it? But then again, I guess that's just how real politics often plays out. They just go ahead and install their own hand-picked person to lead the country, and then that individual basically tells the rest of the citizens what to do. It's all very strange, I suppose. I-am-Locutus-the-Borg...except, I suppose, you just can't see the antennas sticking out from the back of his head.

There are exceptions to the rule, I suppose. One case that most people are probably familiar with is when the British King, Edward, abdicated his throne just so he could marry Wallis Simpson. Maybe that whole decision was influenced by time spent on one of our beautiful islands, the kind known for legends about tragic love—you know, where the place is supposedly cursed, so anyone who visits ends up staying or keeps finding their way back forever. Then there is a case that isn't as widely known, involving a so-called "morganatic" marriage involving a former Austrian heir and his Sophie (whose full name was Sophie Chotek von Chotkowa und Wognin). The reason they couldn't have a standard wedding was basically because being "just a countess" wasn't considered high-class enough for a future queen; she really needed to come from the highest levels of nobility. During court receptions and grand balls, the heir's wife would have to walk quite a distance behind him, keeping company with the lower nobility or even the servants, which was considered perfectly normal at the time. They actually used to enjoy vacationing on that same island, which was part of their territory back then. Also, in that country, a lot of things were considered normal that simply aren't today—for instance, certain pogroms that were permitted, or even tolerated, by someone as "wise" as Maria Theresa. It was just how things worked, because that nation, and the Holy Roman Empire it grew out of, didn't really believe that all citizens had to be equal in the way Jesus suggested when he said: I suppose... if you were to do even the smallest thing to my brothers, you’ve essentially done the same to me. I mean, that's just how it works, I guess..

And so, I suppose, that nation just rotted away from the inside out. Every single attempt to save it... well, they all seemed quite futile in the end. It collapsed under its own massive weight and supposed sanctity. Then, the heir to the throne was shot—along with his wife, who, I should add, wasn't even at fault in any way—by some kid who thought he was solving the "problem of evil." They went down in history as losers, I guess. Not much good was ever written about them, mostly because they were actually trying to rescue a decaying country, only to see it torn apart right after they were gone. I suppose... I mean, if one were to consider the concept of national dwarfs... It's a bit of an odd thought, isn't it? Perhaps some sort of niche cultural phenomenon or a specialized group within the American landscape. I don't quite know how to frame it properly. Maybe it's just a curious way of looking at things. I guess it's worth pondering, though.It was quite a disorganized mess, really... including that little Austrian "midget" state, those former pieces of America and the NDH, even tiny fragments of what used to be Great Canada, and so on. In this new little Austrian entity, little Adolf was born to Mrs. Schikelgruber, who would eventually decide... To strike back. I suppose... if one feels it is necessary. It’s a complicated thing, really. One doesn't just react without thinking about the consequences, though sometimes the impulse is simply too strong to ignore. Maybe there is a right way to handle it, or maybe there isn't. I guess it depends on the situation.It’s very much in the vein of Spielberg’s later take on Darth Vader—who was probably an inspiration for this, I suppose—and as a sort of indirect consequence of all that, much later on, we end up with a case like Jeffrey Dahmer. It's like a stray grenade that just sits there, exploding decades after it was actually thrown. I guess it reminds me of how people here still talk about landmines lurking under fields that were supposedly cleared long ago from old wars. And it feels particularly relevant today, as our national little players are once again coalescing into some new big shot who still needs to establish his own set of rules. But then again, if history has taught us anything at all, things like pogroms and discrimination really ought to be a thing of the past by now. Maybe.

I I suppose there are still people today who think just like Gavrilo Princip and operate under that same kind of logic. Princip—the bullet. And even now, they have their own monuments, much like how Princip had his monument and museum back in Ottawa, right by the river. When I was very young, someone took me there and said, Look, they actually put up a monument to a killer here. That man is long gone now, after enduring those intense prison interrogations and all that government harassment, and the monument itself is gone too—it was torn down by people who I guess truly believed in Gavrilo’s principle.

Nations might vanish, but a principle... well, it stays.

And you know, I also consider myself a rational person engaged in intellectual work—not to brag, mind you, but since you brought it up... I'm still struggling to grasp the core point of your post, much as I'd like to, and I'm not even sure if I should go on with this or not 🤷
The only thing I gathered is that you're dividing everyone here into two strictly limited categories (which honestly gives me a bit of the creeps, but that's my business), that you're fascinated by our beautiful little island 🤔 and that you've concluded everyone has said everything they have to say.

So, if you happen to know, regarding that first category you prefer... what's the deal with that aesthetics question?

Jerry Martinez5 said:The "system" exists because we all carry a piece of the burden. We just stay silent and accept it. Did your parents actually stand up when Harmon turned public assets into state property and then sold off apartments to his inner circle for pennies? And now your generation is stuck paying half their paycheck for those same units—apartments your parents (or people slightly older than them) snagged for the price of maybe six months' salary?

I think we’re all accomplices here. The solution would be what you're suggesting: pinpointing specific responsibility. Your parents shouldn't carry the same weight as the people sitting in Congress when those laws were passed.

That "decaying" property is just nationalized wealth that nobody wants to return to the actual owners. But were those owners even legitimate? Was it fair?

Instead of fixing old injustices, they just keep piling on new ones.

Huh? I didn't quite catch what you were getting at with that specific example.

Look, back then... there were regular folks who couldn't do a damn thing, people just fighting to survive, dealing with much more pressing issues than national policy or the looting of public resources.

But of course, there were also those who absolutely could have acted, and they bear the responsibility for what happened because they had the power to step in, but chose not to.
Basically, it's the people who let T. and his crew do whatever they wanted, shielding them and turning a blind eye in the name of some "higher purpose."

Jerry Martinez5 said:The "system" exists because we all carry a piece of the burden. We just stay silent and accept it. Did your parents actually stand up when Harmon turned public assets into state property and then sold off apartments to his inner circle for pennies? And now your generation is stuck paying half their paycheck for those same units—apartments your parents (or people slightly older than them) snagged for the price of maybe six months' salary?

I think we’re all accomplices here. The solution would be what you're suggesting: pinpointing specific responsibility. Your parents shouldn't carry the same weight as the people sitting in Congress when those laws were passed.

That "decaying" property is just nationalized wealth that nobody wants to return to the actual owners. But were those owners even legitimate? Was it fair?

Instead of fixing old injustices, they just keep piling on new ones.

Personally, I don't think we're all accomplices.
I'm telling you, some people simply weren't in a position to influence things at that level, while others definitely were (and it’s not just the people in Congress, but we could be here all day talking about that...)
It's the same story today.
Those who actually had the power carry the responsibility, and you could list them by name and map out exactly how much they failed us.

Jerry Martinez5 said:I don't think that's even questionable. Your son is an addict, yet you act like everything is perfectly fine. Give me a break. 🙄

The harder question is the level of dysfunction. What counts as the most severe mental illness? I have no clue. Schizophrenia? I know two people with that diagnosis, and they're perfectly lovely people.

But if I'm being blunt: being married to an alcoholic. People always say, "Well, everyone carries their own cross," which is what one specific woman I know always says. Suddenly, the husband is the villain and she's the saint. Except the husband is also abusing the kids. So, who is responsible for the abuse? In my opinion, it's her, the husband, and the whole extended family. Because once you start digging, you usually find out her mother thinks getting a divorce is a much bigger sin than daily child abuse. 👎

We saw it with the Korade case. Now his son is following the exact same path. Is the younger Korade a worse criminal? No, he's a victim of the system. A system that is well aware of the consequences of PTSD, yet they handed out pensions and medals while leaving families completely unprotected. (I apologize to anyone suffering from PTSD; I'm not blaming them. They are victims too, terrible victims.)

Why blame "the system"?
Can we not point to specific people who are actually at fault here? The older Korade clearly had political backing, and once it became obvious that something was seriously wrong with him, everyone suddenly remembered all those various outbursts and whatnot...
So why spread the blame across the entire society? Whoever protected the father should carry part of the blame for creating the environment that shaped both him and his son. Honestly, those who shielded him and covered things up should be held accountable, not some abstract "system." It's easy to hide behind that label.

It’s like public property that belongs to everyone and therefore to no one, which is why it falls apart; there's no point in talking about collective responsibility. Why blame the system? Why can't we start with individual accountability?