Posts by Zachary Turner6

Edward Flores4 said:What about hermaphrodites? Genetic engineering? Reconstructive surgery? Maternity wards in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?

It seems entirely plausible that even the blind forces of random mutation decided to "gift" some boys with a vagina, much to the absolute delight of guys like Doug Stanhope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY4LI...eature=related

Man, this is dark.😲😁

Edward Flores4 said:I mean, why would anyone hope that the majority of people would resist those kinds of ideas in the first place...?

For instance, every single time I see coverage regarding the conflict between Palestinians and Jews, I get this dark, sudden impulse to channel my inner Adolf Hitler—only to do a much more thorough job than he ever did. From a Palestinian perspective, it’s honestly a shame that I end up resisting that urge every time.🤷

You can't really claim that every single Palestinian feels the need to see all Jews dead; that’s just lazy generalization. Besides, didn't you argue earlier that while morality might be relative, ethics must remain universal for everyone? So, it wouldn't necessarily be the "Palestinian perspective," but rather the "perspective of certain Palestinians"—or perhaps even "most Palestinians"—but certainly not the collective view of every Palestinian.
My point about "extremely amoral individuals" (even those who are mentally ill—though, is that really an "easy out"? 😕), specifically people akin to Ed Gein (or Hitler, for that matter), actually rests on that very idea of universal ethics—the inherent human capacity to distinguish "good" from "evil" that most people on this planet possess. 🤷

And since most people have this ability to tell right from wrong, they ought to recognize the importance of resisting the "demon of irrationality"—which seems to haunt nearly everyone, in one form or another. This isn't just about knowing we're wrong; it's about empathy. But more importantly, it's about pure selfishness: the recognition of ethical reciprocity. If we act this way toward others—whether consciously or not—we are essentially voting for it to become a universal rule. And if that "demon of irrationality" becomes the standard, who's to say it won't eventually be turned on us? 🤷
In fact, I suspect the entirety of ethics—along with empathy and everything else—could easily be distilled down to impulses that are fundamentally selfish, yet highly motivating once you actually sit down and think about them.

But, as I mentioned, simply reacting when it happens to us isn't enough. We aren't just responsible for our actions and our words; we are also responsible for our failures to act. In other words, empathy alone—mere wishes and pleasantries—isn't sufficient. You have to step up if you decide action is necessary. And, of course, we carry the weight of responsibility for our own judgment.

Hmm, true enough.

There’s this specific line of reasoning regarding why people feel compelled to inflict harm on others—whether that drive is conscious or buried deep in the subconscious. Edgar Allan Poe (whose biography is, shall we say, less than stellar) explored this concept through several of his short stories (Black Cat, William Wilson, The Imp of the Perverse, The Tell-Tale Heart,...). His core argument is that sometimes we feel an irresistible urge to do exactly what we know we shouldn't—precisely because we know it's forbidden."
He refers to this phenomenon specifically as the imp of the perverse. It makes you wonder: do some people (if not all of us) actually possess such a twisted sense of gratification derived from the suffering of others? Is there a figurative Marquis de Sade living inside everyone, waiting for the moment they can break through the surface and seize total dominance over human consciousness and action? It’s a pretty chilling thought, honestly...

Why is it that some manage to resist this impulse while others succumb? And why is it that for most people—hopefully the majority—such acts are repulsive even at a subconscious level? In short, how is it possible that there are individuals who derive genuine, conscious pleasure from inflicting pain (rape, pedophilia, murder motivated by pure sadistic thrill, and so on)?

Carl Anderson76 said:I mean, just how much trauma did he have to endure to turn into a monster like that? It’s honestly chilling.
What about her mother, though? How could she possibly be oblivious? Honestly, I wouldn't even be shocked if she was secretly complicit in all that horror.
It makes you wonder how many similar atrocities are happening right now across the country without us ever catching wind of them.
Just thinking about how many women and kids are out there this very second, suffering through unimaginable abuse behind closed doors... it's heavy.

but... boys don't have vaginas... (honestly, looking at your profile picture, even Martin Luther King Jr., H.P. Lovecraft, and Hideo Kojima would be physically ill—me? I just shield myself with humor. Bad, dark humor. So don't judge me too harshly. And even if you do, it doesn't matter.)

Fine, the "monster" got convicted. But one question remains: I’m curious, how much of a sentence should the neighbors and the mother get if this guy is looking at life in prison (maybe 5-6 years, judging by his age)?

There’s an old saying—I think it came from some violinist, or someone like that—Albert Einstein. A genuinely smart man, truly. It goes something like this: the only people worse than those who commit evil acts are those who allow them to happen. Or, as Joe so succinctly put it: we are all to blame...

Though, naturally, there is an explanation for that: "we are all strong enough to endure the suffering of others" (La Rochefoucauld)

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Dammit, you missed my point entirely; once again, I find myself turning to LaoTse:
When a high-level sage hears of the Tao, they rush to align themselves with it.

When a mid-level sage hears of the Tao, they are caught halfway between belief and doubt.

And when a low-level sage hears of the Tao, they simply burst out laughing.

If they hadn't laughed, they wouldn't truly understand the Tao at all.

hmm...

And here I was, under the impression that one of life's great pieces of wisdom was simply being able to take everything—the good, the bad, and the ugly—with a smile...

It would be a much more compelling concept if the greatest sage rushed to align with the Tao while laughing his head off.😁
Sure, certain truths are—let's face it—only accessible to a tiny fraction of the population (fine, call them the "highest-level sages" if you must), and that’s just reality. However, that doesn't change the fact that such a hierarchy is blatantly elitist.🤷

Jonathan Brooks8 said:This whole thing brings to mind something Lao Tzu once said:
"My value lies precisely in the fact that I am so rarely understood."

It seems nobody can spout quite as much nonsense as those who claim to be wise...😁

😂😂
We might as well just close this thread now; it’s impossible to top this level of absurdity. Truly legendary...

"Just speak normally so the rest of the world can actually follow you"—that should be the golden rule for any philosopher. But alas...

It is truly questionable—irrational, even—how often these pseudo-intellectuals rely on convoluted phrasing and dense semantic gymnastics to compensate for a glaring lack of actual substance or expertise. Instead of sticking to the topic using everyday language and, heaven forbid, coherent logic to get to the heart of the matter, they hide behind jargon. They try to "illustrate" or "exemplify" their points through sheer linguistic complexity just to seem credible. Ugh, I'm exhausted just typing this. It's funny, though.🙂

Then again, if you don't speak in meta-language, people just dismiss you as some amateur philosopher—though, really, what defines a "professional" philosopher? Does anyone actually get a paycheck for philosophizing? Or an amateur literary theorist? 😢

Is it better to be a smart, constructive hillbilly than an eloquent, highly educated idiot?😕🤷

rustywalker42 said:Not me either. I’m just sitting here waiting for the rest of the crowd to weigh in. Honestly, I don't get how anyone could care about runtime—especially when it comes to a great movie (you only really know if it works once you see how the pacing feels).
If Leo had wanted Once Upon a Time in America to run for over six hours, personally, I wouldn't have complained; in fact, I probably would've enjoyed it even more.
Of course, because it was "too long" for the average American audience at barely four hours, they went ahead and chopped it down by a good ninety minutes.😵

I generally don't pay attention to the clock; if a movie is actually good, let it run as long as it needs to.
Though, I will admit, Once Upon a Time in America felt a bit overextended to me.

I have to go along with the consensus here and say that Edward Norton is easily one of the finest—actually, maybe I’ve even undersold him—actors of the "younger generation" working today. He's just a phenomenal talent, honestly.

What an absolute masterpiece!
It’s sitting right at the top of those "all-time most watched" lists—mostly thanks to the lower classes, if you catch my drift, haha. I remember being obsessed with this movie when I was just a kid.