Amanda Jackson5 said:So, how are they any different from intravenous drug addicts? If anything, the junkies are much more direct when it comes to their desires and how they actually live them out.
Unless we're talking about causing potentially fatal respiratory depression, like when someone overdoses on opioids.
To be honest, looking at how things are going, I don't see how anyone's lifespan would be particularly long in Zerzanov's utopia. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and maybe Zerzan thought of something I missed.
Or maybe he's just one of those guys who thinks life expectancy isn't all that important, as long as you're living authentically—you know, staying true to yourself and being happy.
Are we talking about the executioner? I wasn't really hanging around this sub back then, if I even showed up at all, but if he was moderating for that long, then the whole thing must have been legit.
I'm guessing he totally got the vibe that handing out freebies is wrong, but failing to hand them out is even worse. 😁
Honestly, I think it all comes down to the small stuff—basically how the mods or admins decide to handle things. They could have just let the thread stay up and only wiped the problematic posts, but hey, I’m glad they stepped in.
Melissa Stewart6 said:It’s definitely a good thing they wiped that thread; there was way too much toxic nonsense in there. Honestly, it would have been better if they'd stepped in sooner. But let's be real—none of this matters much without competent moderators in place, otherwise, we're just waiting for history to repeat itself.
I'm with you. They needed to step in because things spiraled out of control on several levels. We definitely need a moderator.
Yeah, look, it’s not just about one specific subforum. Honestly, no matter which part of the site you look at, nothing is ever going to run smoothly or stay on track long-term without some solid moderation in place.
I caught it yesterday and honestly, I was pleasantly surprised. Everything just clicked—the cinematography, the acting, the script, the pacing, even that self-deprecating humor. It all worked together perfectly.
To be fair, I've never been much of a fan of the franchise. I can't even remember if I saw the first two installments. I went into this one with an open mind just looking to unwind and relax after a long day, and man, it did not disappoint.
So, I see people are actually debating whether an Italian movie even counts as Giallo anymore. Honestly, who cares? Even if they aren't produced in Italy, plenty of films lean so hard into that specific aesthetic that you can definitely say they have Giallo elements. Personally, I think the label should stay reserved for the classics from Italy, but hey, everyone has their own take on it.
If I had to pick some more recent ones that come to mind, I’d go with Amer, The Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears, and Berberian Sound Studio.
I wouldn't necessarily shove all of them into a strict Giallo box, though. They feel more like genre mashups. For instance, Amer feels more like an artsy flick that just plays around with Giallo vibes—kind of like "gialloploitation." It's the same deal with The Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears.
It’s worth a watch, mostly if you want to get a better handle on horror history. It's perfect for anyone who digs the classics and doesn't mind a bit of camp or trashy fun, because trust me, there's plenty of it. That said, I'd say it's definitely the weakest link out of the three we talked about.
On the flip side, Suspiria remains an absolute masterpiece for me. The atmosphere is just unmatched—the visuals and the sound design are executed so perfectly. Looking at the genre as a whole, that alone puts it well above the rest. Wes Craven, Tovali, and Goblin were such a killer combination.
It shouldn't be up to some random doctor or nurse to make these kinds of calls based on how they're feeling in the moment. They have to follow established protocols and standard operating procedures.
Those rules exist because a whole group of experts and sometimes even the broader community worked together to figure them out.
In an ideal world, people should call their own shots when it comes to life and death. We can debate whether euthanasia is okay, or if the death penalty is acceptable when the state decides someone's fate after a major crime, but that’s not what we're talking about here.
You hit the nail on the head—it isn't your place to make life-or-death decisions for other people. I mean, did anyone even bother to ask that woman in her 90s if she actually wants to hang on?
Looks pretty interesting. I noticed Jordan Peele isn't directing or writing this one, but honestly, the whole vibe still feels exactly like his style. I'm definitely keeping an eye on this.
Is there any way to get that old thread about the one-dimensional man back up on Philosophy?
I’m not trying to jump into those endless wars Sigmund gets into with all the traditionalists—the ones that got him banned in the first place. Honestly, he and I usually see things from completely opposite sides anyway, whether we're talking economics, philosophy, science, or even just how to cook a steak. But that specific topic was actually really interesting and well-structured. It sparked a great debate and got a lot of solid participation from everyone else on the forum.
feralranger said:Fine, I am merely suggesting that if that particular choice is considered rational, then logic and professional ethics are effectively at war with one another.
I myself have cast a shadow of doubt over the entire premise.
Because, if it is deemed perfectly rational to prioritize saving one's own son over five complete strangers, then we have essentially provided a functional justification for nepotism. Professional ethics demand that we save the greatest number of people, not our immediate kin. If you label that impulse as "rational," you are opening a massive Pandora's box, as you will inevitably face similar dilemmas involving strangers versus family members or distant relatives in other contexts.
I admitted that I would save my son, but I would characterize that decision as being driven by raw human emotion rather than anything resembling "reason."
I get where you're coming from. I can definitely agree with most of your logic there. That said, I wouldn't have called your decision to save your son unreasonable right out of the gate.
I always run into this same dilemma. If you look at everything through the lens of utilitarianism, the problem basically disappears. There’s no real debate left. But hey, utilitarianism isn't the only way to approach ethics when things get messy. There are plenty of other ways to see it.
Look, I’m not saying virtue ethics is "better" than utilitarianism. That’s not what I mean. I just think those other perspectives actually exist and they aren't necessarily fueled by nothing but raw emotion or pure irrationality. They have real substance.
Druid As feralranger points out: I find myself inclined to disagree.
Understood.
While professional ethics are certainly a noble pursuit, they ultimately represent nothing more than an expensive collection of evolving practices that are perpetually subject to refinement and overhaul.
Does that imply that professional ethics is either a subset of general ethics, or perhaps entirely separate from it altogether?
Semantically speaking, one would naturally assume that such an expectation exists. If it didn't, we would be left with the rather absurd notion that "professional ethics" could somehow exist in direct opposition to actual ethics, which—if I'm being perfectly honest—strikes me as a logical impossibility.
If we accept the premise that "professional ethics" is merely a subset of broader ethics—and since you previously conceded that such a classification isn't inherently absurd—then we are forced to confront a rather uncomfortable logical impasse: that reason and morality are, in fact, at loggerheads.
He made a good point.
You really need to take a step back here. You have to look at how you're defining what counts as "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" in this scenario before you can confidently claim one is definitely unreasonable and the other is reasonable.
Without some kind of devil in the details, we aren't even talking about true ethical dilemmas.
mistybison said:Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁
She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁
The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉
Jamie Davis9 said:Honestly, there’s nothing groundbreaking or even remotely novel being said here. Dostoevsky was already dissecting this exact same thing ages ago, leaning on those fundamental Nietzschean concepts regarding the superman destined for upheaval, whereas the average person exists merely to ensure the continuation of the species.
When Crowley was talking about ritual infertility, he was actually referring to basic old-fashioned masturbation. You know, just wasting seed through solo play. For ritualistic reasons, obviously. A practitioner of LHP takes that energy that would normally go toward creating a new life and redirects it toward their own personal evolution. in Your faca god / Evolution. 🙂
Besides, women are already shedding unfertilized eggs and bits of nesting material on a monthly basis. Meanwhile, they’re out there wearing white pants, going skydiving, shaking it at nightclubs, and sipping tequila with their partners in crime. Whether they realize it or not, they are mass killers. They're basically Peterson's dragons. 🙂
A promising actress walked away from the limelight to spend 13 years inside a cloistered convent of Sisters Mary in Santa Fe—and now she’s decided to take it even further by living completely alone. Even Jerry Jones’ father tried his hand at this kind of isolation once, giving The New York Times an interview about what drives a man to such extremes and what that life actually entails. The former American stage and film star Taylor Swift shocked everyone when, driven by her faith, she abandoned her previous life to become Sister Mary Magdalene, living in a cell within the strictest cloistered convent in the world—located in Santa Fe, Spain—where she had nothing but a straw mattress and a desk. Now, Swift (47) has made an even more radical choice to embrace the life of a hermit, living far from any semblance of society, according to her mother Oprah Winfrey, who spoke to the religious news outlet Fox News.
Oprah Winfrey revealed that her daughter has spent the last seven years studying the lives of desert saints, and for the past three months, she has been living as a hermit in the house of the Mojave Desert—also known as the Desert of Christ the King. Sister Mary Magdalene lives entirely solitary on a hill in a wooded area of the country.
One issue with LHP is that the definition is super blurry. It’s basically an umbrella term that covers just about everything depending on who you ask.
To me, those examples above fall under RHP, not LHP. Unless we're saying that pulling away from a group automatically makes it LHP, which feels like a massive stretch.
Regardless of how you define it, I don't see much value in terms usually linked to LHP paths, like Satanism, hostility, or antinomianism.
At the end of the day, some occultists and esoteric folks just base the whole LHP concept on negative and destructive vibes.
Honestly, LHP mostly attracts young, rebellious types who haven't quite figured things out yet. Once they grow up, they usually find real purpose in more constructive spirituality.
bluemason3 said:Nothing. Or rather, whatever happens when a specific author or their supposed authority gets mocked, along with all the other empty, airy nonsense found in religious and spiritual circles.😉
For instance, some early Hindu texts list Kaula and Tantra as separate paths, even though today people treat Kaula as a textbook example of Tantra, and Tantra itself as the Left-Hand Path.
Then you have the way early Orientalists tried to redefine Tantra entirely.
Then there are attempts to rewrite definitions for nationalist reasons, often constrained by Victorian morality during those late-colonial Hindu nationalist movements and reforms.
Then you have the early Western occultists who just picked up pieces of that messy narrative.
Then you have neo-tantrics like Osh, who cook up their own stories by mixing things with humanistic psychotherapy and various cultish nonsense.
And then you have the Satanists and similar kids.
Basically, once the hype dies down, everyone is left convinced they have a clear view of the spiritual world, while they’re actually just trapped inside their own heads—living through projections and fantasies (some shared by the group) that can be manufactured by anyone and never have any actual basis in reality.
LHP, RHP, upper, lower, middle path... it’s all just noise.
It’s just like how Smith put it: 'I don't care if it's left or right, up or down. I'm a hardcore graduate of the school of hard knocks.' 😁