Posts by Amanda Flores88

bluemason3 said:Men watch more sports, and frankly, more men are high-level athletes. I doubt models make more than... well, let's just say certain other professions.

The difference is also that women tend to avoid the grit. They aren't interested in blood, sanitation, or oil rigs. Risk-taking in business isn't really their thing either. They'd rather stay in an office and complain about their manicure being ruined.

Look at you, getting paid well to shove a female-dominated job into something where you can't even argue with the money, though at least you can brag about the prestige.

And this whole idea that women stay away from blood, trash, and oil? Seriously? Women deal with filth, garbage, and pretty much every human secretion imaginable—not to mention seeing blood at least once a month... and let's not forget those stories about how guys start writing their wills just because they have a sore throat. 😁

gentlerider7 said:... Well, sure, if you're living in a cutthroat capitalist machine, yeah, that holds water.

That's exactly why the USSR cooked up that whole "Stakhanovite" nonsense—you know, those supposed labor heroes who were supposed to smash production quotas just to prove how much of a patriot they were. They tried to manufacture motivation out of thin air.

But let’s be real, does anyone actually give a damn about a shiny medal or a pat on the back anymore? Not really. Most people would trade a commemorative plaque for a fat direct deposit in their bank account any day of the week.

Yeah, having prestige without any actual clout doesn't get you very far.

Still, why is it so much easier to daydream about some tech magic wand that teleports society into a utopia without the messy parts, rather than actually changing how we view things?

bluemason3 said:That’s a non sequitur.
And there you have it—our answer to why there aren't enough women in philosophy departments.

Honestly, the only real difference between those "men's jobs" and "women's jobs" is that the guys actually get paid better. Even when you're talking about pro football players. 😛

bluemason3 said:Sure, sanitation workers, sewage crews, and miners are all women too. Just because they enjoy complaining about it doesn't mean they aren't stuck doing the absolute worst jobs out there. ☕

Physical labor will probably shrink anyway thanks to automation, and since utopias don't exist, there's really no point in chasing them.

Communes fail because, by definition, they're just escapist clubs for naive idiots who can't adapt.

Though, they're still slightly less idiotic than those (former) socialists who thought they could just rotate tasks and split everything up equally among everyone.

You totally forgot those pathetic pro football players. ☕

gentlerider7 said:No, that’s not it at all—I only mentioned cooking because someone in another thread was complaining about how municipalities are basically falling apart because nobody wants to do the service work, like cooking or cleaning toilets. It’s just that "unpleasant" stuff was brought up earlier; you know, things like mining, trash collection, window washing skyscrapers, digging trenches, all that. And let's be real, most of those heavy-duty gigs, like working in a mine, have historically been dominated by men anyway, so this whole debate doesn't even have anything to do with feminism.

But honestly, the question shouldn't even be about *who* does the work—it's all about how society views the job itself, you know? Like, how much respect are we actually giving it?

If you aren't going to pay someone well, you've got to make the role feel meaningful and actually desirable, rather than treating it like some kind of punishment.

At the end of the day, a job is only as attractive as the value we put on it. It's that simple. Jobs aren't "unattractive" just because they're complex, tough, or dangerous; they're unattractive because they're undervalued and underpaid. Money and status—that's the real driver.

Gerald Jackson48 said:👍

There are plenty of local and international sources suggesting that part might be right. But honestly, the whole idea of Al Capone getting involved in building up parts of Cleveland feels like a bit of a stretch. Still, who knows? I really ought to dig into this more.

Could be, but if there are tons of middlemen and endless paperwork between him and those skyscrapers... if he didn't pull the trigger himself, does it even matter? If the chain is too long or spread too thin, I don't think you can really call it a significant connection.

Sandra Murphy33 said:🤣

...I can't tell if you're playing the trickster or if you're actually being serious, but you hit the nail right on the head. 🙂 😎

Man, seriously—it’s both hilarious and totally true at the same time. 😁🙂

Sandra Murphy33 said:I can't for the life of me remember where I actually put it 👎

Some total trickster at the library. 🙂

A clean conscience can be its own worst enemy, right?

Sandra Murphy33 said:Has anyone picked up "post-capitalism and a world without work" yet? 🙂

I spotted it at the library a couple of days ago. It’s a new arrival, and nobody had checked it out yet. I decided to reserve it for myself by tucking it away on a random shelf where it doesn't belong, just so the usual crowd browsing that section won't stumble upon it. ... psssssssst 😎

aaaaa 😁 None! 🧐

Steven Clark2 said:

I find myself wondering if there is anyone else out there who shares this particular obsession with sailing. There is something profoundly humbling about being at the mercy of the wind and the waves, isn't there? It forces a certain kind of discipline upon you that modern life rarely demands. kaže:
This is an excellent topic; I truly commend you for bringing it up.

My struggle with books is of a different nature entirely. I simply have nowhere left to put them. Between building my house, dealing with mortgage debt, and furnishing several rental properties, I’ve spread myself thin. There is space for everything else in my home, but there is absolutely no room left for my poor, neglected books.

Perhaps a divorce might actually prove beneficial for you? 😁

That is precisely why I opt to pack everything onto several external hard drives. I don't struggle with storage capacity—well, not exactly—since each drive seems to offer significantly more space than the last. There was a time when 500GB or even a single terabyte would have sufficed for my needs, but those days are long gone.

I am truly sorry, but I find myself at a loss. It appears the message you provided consists only of a single word that does not contain any context or content for me to work with. If you could please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite, I would be more than happy to apply my process to it immediately. kaže:
I have always felt a near-fetishistic devotion to books, and I find it quite difficult to part with them. I am, truth be told, an obsessive-compulsive collector at heart. Because of this, my collection has grown quite extensive, though I lack any proper shelving to house them. Consequently, they end up scattered everywhere—cluttering nightstands, overflowing from bookcases, or tucked away in various cabinets. You might even find them squeezed between a broom and a can of tuna in the pantry, or nestled in the kids' room somewhere between the makeup kits and the Barbie dolls.

It’s a shame. And tell me, do you actually know how easy it would be to just organize all of that into folders? 😁

I find myself wondering if there is anyone else out there who shares this specific fascination. Is there truly no one else? kaže:
Having spent some time working in the medical field, I have accumulated a rather significant collection—perhaps thirty or so books specifically focused on medicine. Beyond that, I own a variety of legal texts, along with a selection of popular fiction from the eighties and various other genres. In total, my library likely holds a hundred volumes, if not more. It is quite a complete collection...You know those ridiculous little games people play—that constant, mindless back-and-forth where everyone is just picking sides and shouting over nothing? It’s all just noise.I currently have my collected works by Dostoevsky, Fromm, Tina Fey—a rare find, truly—and Borges on hand.

I am certainly not trying to belittle any particular author or literary movement, but I must admit that fiction just doesn't seem to click for me. No matter how hard I try, I simply cannot get into reading it.

I find myself wondering if there is anyone else out there who shares this specific fascination with sailing. There is something profoundly meditative about being out on the water, navigating the wind and the waves, that I simply cannot put into words. It is more than just a hobby; it is a pursuit of clarity. As requested:
As for astrology—I’ve actually managed to collect almost everything worth reading published here in America. I have about a hundred different titles printed out and professionally bound, simply because I can't stand reading from a screen.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Perhaps I should start printing some of my own works to import as well; that seems like a brilliant idea. I am just a bit lost on where to begin—I have a few articles scattered around that I consider sacred, but I realize I’ve only made it halfway through, still tethered to a digital screen.

Wait, what? Theology? Dozens of books? Like what, specifically? If you actually possess more than I do, I will gladly bequeath everything I own to you before I pass. 😁

It is never too late to start writing essays. By the way, browsing a used bookstore is a wonderful pastime. I visited one for the first time in my life right here—just a specialized bookshop, nothing else. I was genuinely surprised by the treasures one can find there. Being a fan of the Eastern Front, I picked up a book about the Battle of Stalingrad. I’ve bought three or four identical copies of similar titles, just different editions, directly from a major bookstore to give to friends, but this one was practically mint condition—so I’m keeping it for myself. I noticed a vast amount of other literature that would be worth owning, and the best part is that you can haggle; you can ask for a discount or offer what you can afford, and see how it goes—I’m not sure if it works like that where you are. You’ve given me the idea to visit there at my very first opportunity.

Wow, that is quite a respectable average then; roughly ten days for a 500-page book. Or about 50 pages a day. Ergo, I am certainly no amoeba.

I find myself wondering if there is anyone else out there who shares this particular obsession with sailing. There is something about the discipline required to command a sailboat—the constant negotiation between wind, water, and will—that appeals to my somewhat overly serious nature. It is a pursuit that demands total presence, leaving very little room for the trivial anxieties of daily life. I suppose I am a bit too earnest about it, but I truly believe there is a profound, quiet dignity in mastering the elements. As I have previously noted:
An acquaintance of mine—who happens to be both a PhD in philosophy and a composer—mentioned that you’ve set a goal for yourself to finish one book per week on average.

Is that really all there is to it? And he calls himself a professor? Honestly, I have a profound disdain for the killers I know—those individuals who can churn out two or three hundred pages a day without even breaking a sweat. It’s truly frustrating. 🤦

It is quite something. I have a friend who completed his PhD at Harvard, and he can easily clock twelve hours of reading a day—sometimes even more when the pressure is on. It was genuinely shocking to me. Yet, he insists that his own workload is nothing compared to what his professors go through. He talks about these legendary global intellectuals, and believe me, I know exactly who he means because I’ve read some of them myself. But those professors? They are tearing through ten books a week like it’s absolutely nothing.

My second closest friend—who was actually my best friend back when I lived in Chicago—earned his PhD in philosophy over in England. He told me this story more times than I can count: he would sit down to read around 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning, and that was it. He’d stay glued to that chair through the entire morning, all through lunch, and straight through the afternoon. By the time darkness fell and his wife finally returned home from work, he still hadn't moved an inch from his seat. 🙏 The sheer passion this man possesses for philosophy is nothing short of incredible. When he engages in a discussion—which happens quite easily for him—he undergoes a complete transformation. He becomes an entirely different person. His manner of speaking shifts entirely; he adopts this intense emotional fervor and a level of confidence that is truly striking. I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon among certain NBA players; I remember watching an interview where one athlete explained how professionals become completely different individuals once they step onto the court. Their entire mindset, their posture, their very essence changes. He approached his studies like a man possessed during his graduate years, moving from his Master's through to his PhD. That said, I wouldn't say his doctoral workload was quite as grueling as that of a friend of mine currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Chicago. To prepare for just a single semester, or even a single exam in one subject, my friend has to plow through forty books, sometimes even more. 🙏 He once told me how he’d spend two full pages drafting essays based solely on Amazon reviews and other snippets he found online—it was simply impossible for him to keep up with the actual reading. To be fair, those weren't even major works, just a handful of books; for most of his library, he actually had to sit down and read them. The four of us have known each other since our university days, but while they all went off to conquer the literary world, I spent the last decade immersed in the media industry. I used to work in media quite extensively—it's a third field I know intimately and enjoy, though I never bother posting about it here on the forum. Now, the old hierarchy is shifting. One friend, who finished his PhD in England, can barely manage to read a single chapter a month due to his obligations; he actually gets quite envious when I mention I've made my way through five pages of a book. Then there’s the guy from Toronto. He really needs to stay sharp since he’s wrapping up his PhD in Old Testament studies this year, but the man knows absolutely nothing about philosophy. If he understands anything at all, it’s only the most superficial concepts. The authors and texts he builds his theses upon are utterly saturated with philosophical thought, yet he remains blissfully unaware, and from the looks of it, it's completely irrelevant to his research. When I recently pointed out that you can't achieve depth without philosophy—that no matter how far you go, it's an essential foundation—he didn't even respond. He simply doesn't know it exists. That said, given his mastery of Ancient Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Persian literature, and various ancient manuscripts, one could argue he possesses a level of knowledge that borders on the obsessive. It’s truly surreal. He once called me while my apartment was literally going up in flames—I'm talking five ambulances, four fire trucks, ceilings collapsing, walls crumbling—and I sat there chatting with him for three hours straight. I acted as if nothing were happening, completely unfazed, as if I were entirely alone in the world. You can just imagine the scene.

These are exactly the kind of people I truly relish listening to. Honestly, after spending time talking with some of them, it takes me nearly five days to fully process everything. And then, when you inevitably ask, "So, what did you guys even talk about?" I find myself at a complete loss for words. Even if I managed to recount parts of the conversation, it would be a struggle. There is just so much left swirling inside me that I simply cannot find a way to convey the impression, the experience, or the sheer weight of the moment. I suppose I don’t quite know why.

You aren't alone in that feeling. The real trouble starts when a few of us get completely swept up in a literary obsession. LOL.

I have heard quite a bit about Berdyaev. I actually know a political science professor who seems to hold Berdyaev in higher regard than his own wife and children. 😁

And they actually remember all that? Props to them, I guess.

Maybe I'm off base here, but I find it hard to believe someone can dig through that much content—just mountains of books—and still stumble upon something they haven't heard or seen before. At some point, you'd expect it to get harder to find anything truly fresh, right? Sifting through endless piles of text just to catch a glimpse of something original... you've gotta genuinely love reading for its own sake to pull that off.

Jack Williams6 said:I honestly feel for you.

It's not exactly a walk in the park for you either. 🙂

Jack Williams6 said:Philosophy died a long time ago—honestly, it’s been dead for ages. It’s been completely usurped by science. Science actually provides answers to questions, and when faced with a question it can't solve, it uses scientific methods to hunt for one. Nowadays, calling someone a "philosopher" is basically just a polite euphemism for saying they don't know anything. (And if you aren't familiar with the term, a euphemism is just a stylistic way to swap out harsh words for softer ones to blunt the blow—you know, sugarcoating things). There is precious little that is more useless in the 21st century than sitting through some long-winded philosophical lecture. The whole pursuit of wisdom is really just an attempt to reclaim that innate sense we had as kids—though, granted, wisdom supposedly crystallizes in some people as they age. Or maybe it doesn't. Kids possess a certain kind of wisdom, and you can actually learn from them just how much we’ve mangled our own mental machinery by growing up, or which fundamental truths we failed to grasp that even a toddler understands perfectly well. You don't need grand philosophy for those lessons. It’s either clear to you, or it isn't. I remember once—at a local park I won't name—watching a child playing with total, carefree abandon while the adults stood around like frozen mummies, lost in some sort of trance. It hit me immediately that this state of being isn't necessary for people; that sort of mindless trance is entirely superfluous. That child, left to their own devices, could eventually turn into one of those pathetic caricatures—those zombies who stare blankly at gadgets and worship abstract ideas that only serve to restrict their freedom. But right now? That child can play without being forced into a mold. In other words, they can follow their own path and live a full life without needing a mountain of philosophy, letting the essence of that play stay within them while only its outward shape changes.

That's just a little zombie playing carefree because someone else is feeding them, dressing them, watching over them, and keeping them healthy. Once they have to start looking out for themselves? Boom. They turn into a full-blown zombie.

Eric Newman75 said:I don't know. Up until recently, I actually believed the world was an orderly place, governed by cause and effect. I used to think there was a point to being honest, hard-working, worthy, and educated—that these were values the universe itself would reward. I believed there was meaning behind suffering and trials, especially the courage required to overcome evil.

Now? I don't see it that way anymore. The world is just chaos ruled by pure randomness. A single cell can decide if you die in absolute agony—like some six-year-old kid who’s never even touched a cigarette or had a drop of booze, someone who did absolutely nothing to cause their own destruction. Human life is so incredibly fragile it’s almost impossible to put into words, and there isn't a thing in existence that can soothe the sheer uncertainty of it all. Everything is just wax melting in a flame, smoke drifting in the wind, snow under a midday sun, a dream of the dawn.

That’s why I stay quiet. That’s why I don't feel like talking. There are things I want to forget. And there are things I want to hold onto forever. Because I still believe in the struggle. In strength. I just don't believe in grand, sweeping words. It's the small things that get to me—complete strangers whose kindness or a simple smile leaves me speechless. Then I pass it on to someone else, another stranger, because I feel this need to pay it forward. It doesn't matter how much unimaginable horror or pain I've endured. What matters is that despite all that, I can still feel love, empathy, closeness, happiness... a genuine respect for another living being and for life as a whole.

It's hard to explain that to someone who hasn't stood at the very edge of everything. To someone who hasn't stared into the abyss. To someone who hasn't let that abyss stare right back into them. But it’s cathartic. It really is. And it sets you free.

I won't go any further on this. I've said what needed to be said.

🙏
Yeah, you nailed it. Everything's been said.

Edward Peterson4 said:Of course I follow Eurovision—and honestly, I’ve been hooked for a long, long time... 🙂

So, I was reading up on some trivia recently, and it turns out Will Ferrell’s obsession with Eurovision actually has a pretty sweet origin story—kind of like how some people get hooked on a specific sports team or a late-night talk show. It all started back in May 1999, when his wife, Viveca Paulin, brought him over to her cousin's place, and the whole family just happened to have the competition on. He caught the vibe, and he hasn't really looked back since! He’s been a fan ever since, even making the trip all the way to Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2014 to catch the big finale live—you know, the one where Conchita Wurst was crowned the winner. It’s honestly such a fun bit of trivia about him.
IMDb Trivia

Honestly, I was surprised by how much I actually got into the American Song Contest and all that campy stuff—but it makes sense now. 😁

I dig Ferrell's sense of humor—like someone else mentioned, even when he's making fun of things, he does it with heart. And yeah, I agree some scenes could've been cut shorter, but overall? It's a blast.
I haven't tuned into the American Song Contest in ages, but the songs this year seem way above average—even the performances. I'm kind of worried Ferrell just set the bar way too high. 👍🤣

Lemtov/Stevens definitely steals the show. 😍

Kyle Lopez36 said:I am trying my best to be there for a friend going through a rough patch. He’s dealing with the fallout of a long-term breakup. I’ve been doing a lot of listening and offering advice, and I honestly thought we had made some real progress over the last couple of months.

Then, a few days ago, he starts telling me about this disastrous date he went on with someone new. He then goes on to describe how he reached out to his ex just to lash out at her, accusing her of seeing someone else and throwing all these other nasty insults her way.

It genuinely floored me—the sheer hypocrisy of him blaming his ex for the exact same things he is guilty of. He’s judging this new girl for being honest about her past struggles, even though he clearly hasn't dealt with his own baggage yet. He’s attacking his ex for moving on, despite the fact that he was the one calling her...
I tried to listen patiently, but eventually, I had to cut him off. I asked him if he actually hears himself, or if he realizes he’s acting like a total jerk.

I want to understand him and help him, but I cannot wrap my head around how someone can take my advice on how to act like a decent, respectful human being and respond with, "What do I get out of it?"

I get that he’s hurting. I’m trying to balance active listening—not following some textbook method, mind you, just trying to be empathetic, recognize his emotions, and reflect back what he says—with giving advice since that's what he asks for. I’m not his therapist, so I feel like I’m taking on a bit of his burden by offering solutions I believe might actually work.
I think I lost my cool when he dropped those antisocial comments. It isn't the first time he's said something incredibly out of line. The first time, I kept it light and used sarcasm to remind him that I’m his friend and want to support him, but added that if I were his ex, I’d probably punch him in the face because I know exactly how he treats her after a breakup. I didn't think I was being too harsh then because I managed to mask it with humor and stay in control. But this most recent outburst? I just blurted it out in pure disbelief, wondering if he even understood the nonsense he was spewing. I was just too shocked to handle it gracefully.

How do you all react in situations like this? How does a professional handle it when a client makes such blatantly antisocial statements, knowing a therapist can't really give their opinion unless it's extremely carefully packaged?

And how should I carry myself in a less formal relationship?
On one hand, a friend wants to share his struggles with me, and I want to remain that safe space for him. On the other hand, he says things that are deeply antisocial to justify his behavior, and I don't know how to show him that his actions are fundamentally wrong without sounding patronizing or lecturing him on things he didn't ask for.

In our last conversation, I tried to frame it pragmatically: I told him he needs to approach new people with genuine interest, without expecting anything in return or dumping his own unresolved issues onto them—because, strictly speaking, that kind of body language and attitude gives him a better shot at getting what he wants. I was pushing him to see others as individuals for his own benefit, but I really want to find a way to explain that people deserve to be treated as humans, regardless of what we might gain from them, without coming across as a moralizing preacher... which I know won't work with him.

Please, help!
Beyond helping me navigate this specific mess, I feel like this is a life skill I really need to master...

There’s a certain type of person who can read everyone else like an open book. You can sit there and chat about people or relationships, and you'll be blown away by how much they see and understand—in theory. But when it comes to their own actions? They get totally stuck. It's like something blocks them from seeing how they actually behave or how they impact those around them. They have this whole different perspective on themselves and a massive toolkit of excuses ready to go.

Sooner or later, they’re going to do something that doesn't even register as a problem to them, leaving you feeling pretty crappy. You might try to tell yourself they just "can't help it" or try to move past it, but let's be real—you probably won't be able to explain it to them anyway.

Now that you see the pattern, maybe ask yourself—what am I actually getting out of diving this deep into their headspace?

It's great to be supportive, but you gotta know where to draw the line. If I were in your shoes, I'd stick to the stuff you guys actually do together, you know? As for the heavy lifting—if they're struggling—leave the therapy to the pros. Do it for your own peace of mind first, and then for the sake of the friendship.

neongull93 said:So, here’s the old ethical dilemma for you—is it better to have ten criminals and one innocent person sitting in a cell, or absolutely zero innocent people behind bars?
Basically, if you let an innocent person walk free, you might be letting ten guilty ones slide right through your fingers... but if you don't, you've got those ten bad actors chilling in a cell right alongside someone who didn't do anything wrong at all.

Look, if this boils down to whether it's better to have a flawed system or no system at all—that's not even a hard call.

Locking up someone innocent is a mistake—an error—not the actual goal. The real question is how many mistakes can we stomach before we say the system is broken. A "10 criminals + 1 innocent" setup isn't perfect; honestly, it might be pretty bad and definitely needs work. But the alternative? There's just nothing there.

Not bad. 11th century... same old questions, same old topics—nothing happening today is actually new. Someone else has already had these exact same thoughts before.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Maybe we can look at it like training a dog to shake hands.
What we see is someone interacting with a pet. What the dog "sees" is just a specific set of circumstances demanding a specific reaction. The dog has mechanically identified certain triggers that lead to the expected paw lift. To us, it looks like social interaction because we assign symbolic value to it, but really, it's just pure mechanics. A dog doesn't lift its paw because of "friendship," right!?
It's the exact same deal with our concepts versus nature. We're just lifting our paws based on triggers.
Is that a sign of friendship or true understanding? Who's to say?
Who can actually tell if there's some higher purpose behind what we do (like the owner's intent), or if it's all just mindless mechanics and triggers?

Solid example.

A lot of things point that way. Sometimes that thought feels like a relief—other times, it's just uncomfortable.

Jacob Cooper5 said:I don't see "justice" as being relevant outside of the human mind. It's a concept created by people to help us adapt to Nature. "Justice" is just a mental construct we cooked up so we don't accidentally wipe ourselves out while trying to survive in the wild. It has zero connection to Nature itself, and frankly, that's where the whole "Believer" problem starts. We humans have adopted these concepts because they work for us, and then we try to force them onto the rest of the planet—on Nature—simply because it's the only framework we know how to use. When those personal little delusions clash with reality, you get the kind of mess that people try to fix with Religion.

Darwin once remarked that he couldn't believe Nature could be quite so cruel. To me, that sentence perfectly captures the human inability to face a reality that exists entirely outside our own little bubble...

Personally? I think our species is fundamentally incompatible with Nature, and honestly, we don't stand a chance at surviving long-term.

Yeah, that's exactly why a genius can still be a complete moron. It's why you see these cases where scientists undergo some kind of brain trauma or chemical shift and suddenly turn into hardcore Believers...

I just wish it were more clearly defined, you know? Like, undeniably obvious.

Look, I don't think there’s ever a single moment where everything is suddenly "solved" and you just possess these universal truths that work forever. But I do think you can recognize certain patterns—basic human behavioral matrices, if you will. Personally, I feel like we all have way more in common than we do differences... and based on that, the better you understand yourself, the better you can read everyone else.

I get where you're coming from—partially, anyway. Though, when you're trying to explain life, it's a bit hard for me to swallow the idea that these concepts—even if they're just mental constructs—are somehow separate from nature itself. We *are* nature. Our thoughts can be seen as nature interacting with nature. It's kind of wild how nature seems to have so many issues with itself, right? 😁

...But I think there are patterns you can recognize regarding human behavior. I feel like we have way more in common than we do differences—so, basically, the better you know yourself, the better you understand everyone else.

And that’s true. Madison Avenue knows that better than anyone.

feralranger said:Then, by that absurdly narrow logic, a Nazi regime would be considered one of the most "just" systems ever devised; after all, they followed their own twisted regulations to the letter, even while committing atrocities that were profoundly evil and fundamentally unjust.

one might argue that nature is incredibly just due to its uncompromising strictness.

I fail to see how nature could possibly be described as 'just,' nor can I find any logical link between natural laws and the concept of justice; nature is essentially a brutal domain governed by the law of the jungle, where the predator at the top of the food chain maintains its status simply through the capacity for savage slaughter.

You’re diving deep into social philosophy here—even though I already hit back at @implosivu regarding that whole "sense of justice" thing and basic natural laws. This isn't some open-ended debate where we can just experiment with walking on our hands because our current way of walking feels "unfair." It's not like that.

Besides, you could just point to any other legal system and say, "Hey, these are good laws." Justice is tied to the rules themselves, regardless of what those rules are or what level you're looking at. If you think a law is bad, it’s usually just because those social rules are clashing with your own internal moral compass.

Quincy:

I don't see how nature is "just" or how it relates to the concept of justice at all. Nature is mostly just survival of the fittest, where the beast capable of brutal slaughter sits at the top of the food chain.

Look, I'm not saying I like it either, but there's nothing "unjust" about it.

It’s funny how people always reduce nature to piranhas, hierarchies, blood, sweat, tears, and general misery—even though nature is also full of life that doesn't bother anyone, exploit anyone, or suck anyone's blood.
In that same natural world, there are species and communities that live peacefully, cooperate, stay chill, get along with their neighbors, and aren't anyone's prey. I don't know why we're obsessed with the predatory side of life instead of the ways things connect differently. It's like we act like that gentler side of the world doesn't even exist.