In my humble opinion, being wise starts with one thing: actually listening to the person talking to you.🙂🙂🙂
It’s wild how many problems just vanish when you give someone the floor. People are incredibly satisfied just knowing they were heard. Most of the time, they already have the answer—they just need someone to listen so their own solution feels valid.
Real wisdom is simple: you leave a conversation feeling like you can handle your own mess without anyone holding your hand.🙂😉😁
Jeffrey Gray4 said:Look, laws take pre-defined concepts into account. Like you said, that apple means "apple." It is one thing, regardless of how it looks, it is still one An apple is just a collection of red shades and hues. That much is certain. Essentially, laws are simplified solutions for complex problems. They work by focusing on the unchanging aspects of an element—things that aren't prone to subjective interpretation. These laws were born from observation... but specifically from observing similarities while ignoring the differences. Your apple example is spot on. Laws exist within the real world because they were birthed from it, just like perception. So, a law is created by spotting immutable similarities. We all know this, but I’d love for you to flesh out your concept a bit more. It’s still not quite clear to me what exactly you’re looking for an answer to...
I'm feeling a bit blunt today, so I'll keep this brief.
1. Laws are primary. They sit at the foundation of everything real. The physical world is just a byproduct of the ideal world. Basically—Plato. 2. Laws are inseparable from reality itself. We just perceive them (and write them down) through our own thoughts. Basically—Aristotle. 3. Ideal laws exist only in our heads, while their application in the real world is always messy and imperfect. Basically—Kant.
Roger Smith5 said:Laws belong to Magic, and Magic serves as the path toward enlightenment; Consciousness is God, just as God is the void and the uncreated work, much like the laws and numbers themselves... it is a truly fascinating cycle...
The singular law of magic is "as above, so below."😉
It would be pretty wild if someone actually skilled in religious logic—maybe you, 🤷—could look at everything we've discussed in this thread, following the footsteps of guys like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, or Avicenna... and try to offer a rational, logical take on how a religious God actually relates to the laws of nature.🙂
Jeffrey Gray4 said:I think you just answered your own question... that an ideal world is all black and white, or maybe just one or the other. But in the real world? It’s the nuances perceived by the observer that actually matter.
I haven't even started answering yet. The real question is: what are laws, and where do they actually live? I've also thrown a third "element" into the ring of reality—the observer.
The "observer" is a unique case because they possess something that sits above both versions of reality, yet can't function without either one. They have thought. And specifically, a curious mind that no amount of data can ever fully satisfy. On one hand, the observer—man—is undeniably an animal (the most advanced kind, sure, but still an animal). Based on biology, organs, behavior, needs, evolution... it's clear he belongs to the world of physical things and beings. On the other hand, the way that same man functions is governed by laws originating from the ideal world.
Thought is a slippery concept; try to pin it down and it slips away like a fish. The truth is, the rules of the physical world (transience, time, space, uniqueness, necessity) don't apply to it, nor do the rules of the ideal world (finiteness and necessity). In fact, for any of those characteristics to even manifest in our world, we have to assign them some sort of mental value first.
I hope nobody more educated or smarter than me takes offense at this line of reasoning. I might just be repeating common knowledge, or maybe I'm heading in the completely wrong direction, but that's exactly why we have this forum—for the sheer joy of philosophizing.🙂😉😁
nimblemaker30 said:We don't actually know where things are, do we? In our own little way, we just dream them up inside our minds, deciphering those tiny little pulses of light...
And honestly, we mostly just dream that we even possess a mind to begin with,
It’s all just one big DREAM.
If you take a closer look—really look—you’ll see that you're dreaming.... The fact that everything is so fleeting is one of the clearest signs that we're dealing with an illusion.
To actually break through that illusion, you have to step into the chaos, into that state where there is neither order nor law,
into a void of pure nonsense, where explanations no longer exist and there is no longer any foothold for the mind to grab onto.
Well said. But the day I actually accept that fact, I won't be human anymore.
To keep going: Everything I’ve laid out implies that reality exists in two distinct modes. You have the physical realm—the world of actual objects and beings—and then you have the ideal realm, which is the world of laws. When you think about it logically, the gap between those two worlds is massive.
For example: Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. If we strip away the fruit and just look at abstract numbers, we write 2 + 2 = 4. In that ideal version of reality, there is always one single result, and in this case, it's 4. Even with complex stuff like probability, there’s just one specific likelihood of something happening or not. That result remains true and necessary, regardless of what's happening in the physical world.
On the flip side, in the real world, those apples could turn out any number of ways. You might end up with four bitten apples, four red ones, maybe one green apple and three ugly ones, four pretty ones, or two green and two red... you get the idea. The ideal world gives us the number—the quantitative relationship—which is undeniably correct, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of the apples that the number is describing. Or take color: if the ideal world tries to analyze the redness of the apples, it will assign a number to every shade of red, but no amount of math or summation will ever let you actually *experience* the color red.
That’s exactly why mathematicians find it easy to calculate possibilities in some imaginary multi-dimensional space. They can crunch the numbers, but math and natural laws alone can't show you what that world actually looks like without the involvement of reality—actual things or beings. The ideal world doesn't care that apples grow and rot, or that calculating takes time, or that every single one of those four apples is a unique individual occupying its own specific point in space and time. It doesn't matter to the math. It just says the answer is four, even if the entire universe collapses.
It's obvious that for the real world to exist, there has to be an "observer." Someone who looks at all those mathematical shades of red the ideal world found and simply says, "That apple is red." As far as we know, the only certain, undeniable, and truthful "observer" is the human being. For now, we are the only ones who name things and give them meaning.
Jeffrey Gray4 said:I don't think this is just about God. It doesn't quite line up with how the servant thinks... there's something deeper going on here. Maybe it's about whether a single human being can even grasp the entity known as God, or existence itself.
dustyskipper3 is spot on. This whole topic has nothing to do with God. Let me clarify.
Isn't it weird that when we look at things—beings or objects—happening around us, we can never claim they are absolutely true in their essence? Or, to put it more simply, in their entirety. A physicist will tell you empty space doesn't even exist because quantum laws say the "shuddering of space" won't allow it. According to the uncertainty principle, a boundary doesn't really "exist" as a definitive line. If you zoom in, everything gets blurry; you can't point to an exact spot and say, "this is where one thing ends and another begins." Try defining the exact line between a living thing and a non-living object, and you'll find it's impossible. We can't assign any absolute characteristic or size to a single entity that makes it a complete, isolated unit separate from the rest of the world. At the same time, no single thing is strictly necessary for the rest of the world to function. It implies that in the real world, there is no such thing as necessity or finality.
Running parallel to this physical reality is the world of natural laws that dictates how everything functions. The speed of light is always exactly what it is—not a fraction faster or slower. Pi is always 3.14..., never 3.15 or 3.13. Physicists define the size and characteristics of an electron, arguing that without those specific values, the universe wouldn't hold together. Energy converts to matter and back again via E=mc², and no other formula works. Two plus two equals four, not five or six. Since the world operates by these rules, we can say these laws are both necessary and, interestingly, finite.
The fact is, these two worlds are intertwined. One cannot function without the other. For instance, we can only conceptualize infinity as a combination of these two realms; infinity doesn't exist if you only look at it through the lens of the physical world or the world of laws alone. It’s also fascinating that while laws exist in an ideal form, applying them to the real world always results in something that is probably true, but never absolutely certain. That's why physicists don't need to hunt for a singularity in a black hole or at the beginning of the universe—it's right in front of them. Every instance of finitude is so incredible that we can basically call the question of its existence a singularity itself.
We know where things are located, but where do the laws reside?
Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, Mark Torres14, I get where you're coming from, but what the hell even is a "philosophical God" supposed to mean?
It’s simple.
I can believe in God without needing to wrap my head around Him. He’s who I respect, who I love, and who I lean on when things get rough. Faith gives my life purpose. Philosophy, at its core, is just humans trying to make sense of the world. In that context, God stops being an object of my devotion and becomes an object of my intellect. A "philosophical God" is the version of God that a philosopher tries to logically figure out.
I’m walking along the beach, picking up shells. The tide is out—typical for this time of year—and there's a bit of a wind, but the sun feels warm. I pick up a stone filled with fossilized remains from a creature that lived long before humans ever walked the earth. It’s pitted and worn down, probably part of some ancient shoreline that turned to stone instantly, trapping whatever life was caught in its path. Time has taken its toll, and this single shell, partially frozen in crumbling rock, has taken over my thoughts. A tiny, insignificant being. Even if it had never existed, the world around me wouldn't change one bit.
So, what kind of world is it?
It’s a world of things that, much like humans, are fleeting. They emerge, they occupy space, they exist for a while, and then they vanish. Every single thing is unique, an original, both new and old, and impossible to replicate. There isn't a carbon copy of any of it anywhere in the universe. And yet, despite how complex or important these things might seem, none of them are actually necessary for the world to keep turning.
But if nothing is strictly necessary for the world to exist, why is it here at all? If you really think about it, there has to be something fundamental holding the whole thing together. Something necessary. What is it?
Believers would point to God; scientists would point to the laws of nature. While people go back and forth on whether God exists—not just as a matter of faith, but as a philosophical debate—there is no question that the laws of nature are real. The conservation of energy, the speed of light, mathematical constants... they're clear, precise, and interestingly enough, they don't share any traits with physical objects. They aren't fleeting, they aren't "unique" in a physical sense, they don't take up space, and time doesn't wear them down. They possess one undeniable, almost divine quality: they are always true. You could argue that these laws are so perfect, and our reliance on them so absolute, that no religious God could even compete with the laws of physics. It's perfection itself. Which means Plato might actually have been onto something—that our reality is just a shadow cast by a world of pure ideas.
Kenneth Peterson5 lives two streets over from me. I run into him all the time at the local grocery store, and on weekends, he’s always at my favorite coffee shop. I grab a macchiato; he sticks to tea. He sits there reading the paper, constantly sliding his glasses down his nose—probably nearsighted. He never joins our debates about football, women, or politics. He usually wears these faded jeans, looking pretty broke and totally out of style. To be honest, he looked like one of those losers who has nothing going for them: no decent job, no wife, not even a real friend to grab a drink with. Normally, I wouldn't give a guy like that a second thought, but his total indifference toward me and my group at the corner table really rubbed me the wrong way. My contempt for him only grew when I saw he was driving some ten-year-old junker of a Mazda that's been missing its passenger-side mirror for ages. Someone probably smashed it, and either he doesn't care or—more likely—he can't afford the fix. He even pedals to work on this old bike; I pass him easily on my Harley on my way home.
Then things started getting weird. People, even the waiters, began treating Kenneth Peterson5 with this weird level of respect. They’d bring him the morning paper without him asking and rush his tea out immediately. One time, I was shocked to see a prominent local Congressman hanging out and having a long, casual chat with him, acting like they were old buddies. Curious, I started poking around, trying to figure out who this guy actually is and why everyone treats him like royalty. I was floored to find out Kenneth Peterson5 isn't some loser at all. He holds a massive executive position at a major federal agency—the same one where I once bid for a construction contract. It turns out he's loaded, and almost everyone I know knows exactly who he is. They were all pretty stunned that I had no clue who Kenneth Peterson5 was.
The following Saturday, I brought the newspaper to Kenneth Peterson5 and picked up his tab. I started small—talking about the weather and kids—then discreetly let him know I could snag him a replacement mirror for his car at a steal, or even for free if needed.
The brain just doesn't function like a computer. Period. It’s completely illogical. The way it reaches an answer is more like quantum uncertainty than any kind of classical logic you'd find in a textbook. Depending on the context or the situation, the brain can take a million different paths just to land on the exact same conclusion. And don't even get me started on memory. Long-term and short-term distinctions become totally irrelevant when you run into someone who remembers absolutely everything, or someone who—despite having a perfectly healthy brain—can't connect two simple dots. I think there was a killer article on this in National Geographic a year or two back.
steelridge58 said:The only thing I truly find fault with is the society and the specific political forces that actually paved the way for genocide to happen, along with the prevailing social currents that eventually drove it to fruition; I remember being in a city under heavy bombardment, and during those first strikes, it hit me with this incredibly vivid, almost physical intensity, asking myself: who on earth gives anyone the right to strip others of their autonomy and decide whether they get to live or die? That’s the absolute number one priority any civilization has to protect: the fundamental right to freedom and the liberty to simply exist.
As for what the victims of genocide or their grieving families actually feel, there isn't much I can say other than letting them speak for themselves through their own lived experiences...
I just wanted to add that I really resonate with what Liquidity wrote here, and I think it’s a vital point to keep in mind.
I've been in a city under fire too. Not quite like Memphis or Boston, but just as lethal and just as senseless. I asked myself those exact same questions. Funny enough, I felt more fear sitting in a city watching the shells fall than I ever did being right on the front lines.
Liquidity made an excellent post here. Always surprises me with how original and deep their perspective is.
steelridge58 said:Look, I've been involved in this discussion for quite a while now and I've given my answers the way I have; if I am ever called as a witness for the prosecution at The Hague, then I will address the questions demanded by the court there. On the other hand, weren't you the one who brought these kinds of examples into our discussion:
So, why don't you try returning to the actual question of the topic, which you've "watered down" with these examples and by insisting on a discussion that leads to such a dark conclusion regarding these scenarios.
With the mothers of Chernobyl, all we can do is feel empathy and help them however we possibly can, but as for whether it's possible to forgive Osama bin Laden, those women themselves know better than anyone: certainly not. But don't forget, Osama bin Laden was only able to commit all those atrocities because nobody stopped him when they could have. In the same way that they cannot forgive him, the victims of genocide certainly cannot forgive a society that failed to react to prevent the crimes and subsequently failed to bring the direct perpetrators to justice.
As for what actually caused all of this... (or to use a Virgilian sentiment: as is often the case, it all began much earlier...) shamantrixx and I have already spoken about that, and you all are free to continue the conversation however you see fit.
Keith Lee2 said:Forgiving (or making peace) basically means: getting rid of that awkwardness and fear you feel when you're around people who caused that vibe in the first place. You can handle it through rationalizing, fighting, or just running away. Rationalizing is like trying to talk yourself out of how you actually feel—basically a mental shift. That works if the feelings aren't too intense. But if the emotions are super heavy? Yeah, you can't really logic your way out of that. Fighting would be more about permanently removing that person—the source of the fear—from your life entirely, so those scary feelings eventually fade away (think something extreme, like a lifetime ban or a prison sentence). Then there's fleeing; which is just putting as much distance between you and them as possible, so again, those bad vibes eventually die down because they're out of sight (like moving to another state).
The thing is, we can only truly forgive or make peace with someone if we've also had some good times and felt positive vibes from them before. So, you can't really "make peace" with someone who only ever brings negativity— you just have to create enough physical and temporal distance until you finally forget them.
Whenever I start chewing on a new idea or concept, I don't just sit there and theorize. First thing I do? I run my conclusions against a real-world example to see if they actually hold water. Scientists would call it running an experiment. That’s how I handle everything I think about—especially the philosophical stuff. I’m sitting here trying to remember if I’ve ever actually seen anyone reconcile or offer real forgiveness in my entire life—and then just go back to business as usual. Sure, I've seen parents forgive kids, or friends make up after some petty bullshit fight. But believe me, either I’m living in some weird bubble, or I have yet to see a victim of a serious crime actually shake hands with the criminal and call it even. That's a different beast entirely. And then there's the whole other issue: can a victim and a criminal even live side-by-side? In the same city, the same neighborhood, the same apartment building? Is that even possible? Look, even when we’re talking about that "watered-down" scenario I brought up with Mark Torres14, I just don't see how reconciliation works unless the offender pays a much higher price than what the victim actually lost. Maybe I'm totally off base here. Maybe his altruism outweighs his ego, or maybe it's some deep-seated faith in God demanding forgiveness. But something about his story just feels off. Honestly, looking around this entire country, I haven't seen an example like that once. Look, you have to realize that time changes things. Specifically, the younger generation—the ones who didn't actually live through the horror of those crimes—is much more likely to find a way toward reconciliation and forgiveness. Just look at history. Think about how much the English and French used to despise each other, or how bitter the relationship was between the French and the Germans after World War II. Now? They’re working side-by-side to build a unified Europe. It happens. I won't drag this out or bore you, but look: reconciliation and forgiveness have a shelf life. There’s a "limit to forgetting," if you will. As long as the victim is still alive and can vividly remember the crime, true forgiveness and making peace just isn't possible. It simply doesn't happen. Look, there's a difference between sociology and reality. Sure, you could argue that society—meaning the political system—is on the hook because it allowed a criminal to get a foothold and, in way too many cases, walk away scot-free. But how can you actually hold "society" accountable? It’s not a person. You can't punch it in the face. If I decide to take matters into my own hands and seek revenge for a crime, how does society as a whole feel that? It doesn't. A collective entity doesn't suffer. Only individuals do.
I've been thinking quite a bit lately about how we define service, and honestly, I sometimes feel like I'm overcomplicating things when I should just be looking at the simple, quiet ways people show up for one another every single day. It’s easy to get caught up in the grand gestures or the loud, sweeping movements that make headlines, but there's something deeply moving about those small, almost invisible acts of devotion—the kind where someone just steps in to handle the heavy lifting without being asked, much like those dedicated staff members who keep everything running smoothly behind the scenes in a busy DC office. I know I tend to ramble when I get onto these philosophical tangents, and I'm probably being a bit too sentimental for my own good, but I truly believe that the soul of any community lies in that willingness to serve others without expecting a spotlight. It’s a humble way to live, and even if I struggle to find that level of consistency myself, I find myself constantly inspired by the people who just... do it. kaže: The topic is this:
Here’s what I’m thinking:
And you’re honestly going to try and downplay it like that? Why on earth would that even happen?
I feel like we’re drifting away from sociology and heading straight into the realm of pure philosophy here. The real question isn't about analyzing the specific social conditions or the systemic pressures that allowed someone like Mercer or Karr to become war criminals in the first place; rather, it’s a much deeper, more personal inquiry into whether it is even humanly possible to offer forgiveness to people who have done such things—and can we ever truly find a way to reconcile with them? I honestly don't think it’s even possible. Maybe some future generations will eventually find a way to move past it all, but for those of us actually living through this—the ones who had to bury our own dead—there is just no way we can ever make peace with criminals.
Look, I already gave you my answer, so if you feel like you didn't quite catch my drift, maybe we just need to look at it from a different angle. My point isn't about downplaying anyone's personal guilt or dodging individual responsibility—far from it. What I’m trying to say is that we have to look at the broader societal conditions that actually allowed these atrocities to happen in the first place, much like what we saw in Rwanda or what we are witnessing in Gaza right now. That’s exactly why we can sit around in our philosophy seminars and debate whether forgiveness is even possible, or if justice has to be served before we can move on, or if "justice" through legal sanctions even means anything when you're dealing with crimes of this magnitude. If your idea of a deep philosophical contribution is just a binary "yes or no" regarding forgiveness—which, honestly, feels a bit shallow to me—then I really think we should try to engage with the actual complexity of the problem here. These aren't just abstract thought experiments; these are cycles of violence that continue to devastate millions of lives, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
I honestly don't know if I'm overthinking this or if there's actually some deeper significance here, but I can't help but feel like we're all just circling around the same fundamental questions without ever really landing on an answer. It feels like we’re constantly trying to make sense of these complex social dynamics, almost like we're looking for a pattern in the static, and sometimes I catch myself wondering if my own perspective is just skewed by how much I want things to make sense. There's this persistent, nagging feeling that even when we think we've grasped the core of an issue, we're still just scratching the surface of something much larger and more complicated than any of us are prepared to admit. kaže: I honestly don't think it's possible. Maybe some future generations will eventually find a way to move past this, but for those of us still living—the ones who actually had to bury our own dead—there's just no reconciling with criminals.
You asked me why—why I keep bringing up social conditions and why you think that somehow "relativizes" their individual guilt and responsibility. I’ll give it to you straight: I’m doing it so we don't end up right back here again. We need to be able to spot those specific societal pressures that lead to such catastrophic outcomes so we can actually decide whether to step in or stay out, ensuring that evil doesn't just grow and spiral out of control. If we don't learn how to stop it from spreading, how are we supposed to prevent survivors from burying their dead all over again, only for some philosophy professor or historian to sit around later asking the exact same questions? I honestly find myself wondering if true forgiveness is even on the table, or if it's just an impossible ideal we chase. I can't help but dwell on whether there’s any way to actually achieve a sense of justice that doesn't just leave everyone stuck in the past—one where those who were victimized by such horrific atrocities could actually move forward and reclaim their lives, whether they choose to forgive or simply try to live alongside the memory of what happened.
Forgive me, Mark Torres14. The woman who started this thread asked a very specific question about whether a victim can find forgiveness and reconciliation. She's talking about the individual level, not society. Forgiveness and reconciliation are emotions. Don't act like I think war criminals just drop out of the sky fully formed without society having any influence on them. Answer the actual question. Is it possible for a mother in Srebrenica to forgive Ratko Mercer? And if you think he's guilty, what kind of sentence actually serves justice for the exact same crime he committed?
I don't know what you're trying to say, but get to the point. [User Name] says: Inspired by the whole idea of moving past genocide and finding some kind of peace, I wanted to see what you lot—the self-proclaimed philosophers of this forum—actually think about it. I’ve been reading up on how "reconciliation" works as a philosophical concept—specifically how it ties into practical philosophy alongside forgiveness. I couldn't find much in the library regarding the actual philosophical side of things. If anyone knows a solid book on the subject, let me know.
Let’s talk about this whole "reconciliation" nonsense. Take a case like Rwanda. Imagine a guy loses his wife and three kids in a genocide, and now his former killer is living right next door. The system actually expects him to just forgive his enemy and play nice? That’s ridiculous. It basically means the killer gets off scot-free without ever facing any actual justice. I don't know what you're talking about. Get to the point. He’ll get pardoned, plain and simple. Forgiveness in places like Rwanda is absolutely vital if you want any hope of moving forward and stopping the next genocide before it starts. Obviously, the killer has to own up to what they did first, but then a pardon is on the table.
So, by that logic, justice wasn't actually served because the killer didn't pay. Does that mean forgiveness and justice are mutually exclusive? Is it even possible for justice and reconciliation to coexist, or does seeking justice automatically kill any chance of making peace?
Here’s what I’m saying:
Mark Torres14 said:I want to know how anyone actually justifies forgiving Ratko Mercer for the massacre at Srebrenica. Technically speaking, what would even constitute a "just" sentence if he were standing before a court? You could apply that exact same logic to the massacres at the Ottawa marketplace during the war. We aren't talking about some polite, social forgiveness because someone gave you a dirty look.
And you're just going to sit there and play down the whole thing like that? Why?
steelridge58 said:No, I’m definitely not saying that Ratko Mercer or Radovan Karr aren't guilty—not by a long shot—but it is an absolute reality that "certain societal conditions must exist for individuals like that to rise unchecked into socio-political positions where they actually have the power to commit such atrocities" (quoting Edward Flores4). Or don't you see it that way? I mean, could someone like Ratko Mercer, Radovan Karr, or even Adolf Hitler... or anyone else... have actually succeeded yesterday, today, or tomorrow if there weren't specific social circumstances that paved the way for them and allowed them to carry out all those horrific crimes in the first place?
This isn't sociology; it's philosophy. The real question isn't about what social conditions allowed someone like Ratko Mercer or Radovan Karr to become war criminals in the first place. It’s much deeper than that. Is it even possible to forgive people like that—people who have already done what they did—and actually find a way to move forward with them? I’m telling you, it’s just not happening. Maybe future generations will find some way to move on, but the people actually living through this—the ones who had to bury their own dead—they aren't going to reconcile with criminals. Period.
steelridge58, Edward Flores4. Are you seriously trying to tell me that Radovan Karr and Ratko Mercer aren't responsible? You're claiming it's just society's fault for "producing" them? What a joke. If their parents hadn't been so hard on them growing than they were kids, maybe they’d be different people. Give me a break. By that logic, Adolf Hitler isn't guilty either. He was just a product of Germany losing its pride after WWI and dealing with those massive reparations imposed by the Allies. So, your argument is basically that we blame the system instead of the individual. Let's test that. Suppose someone kills someone close to you, totally unprovoked. And then some guy comes along and tells you, "Hey, don't blame him—blame the society that made him." What would you say to that? Would you actually agree?
Edward Flores4 said:It honestly baffles me how even the smartest people often fail to see that individuals—people like Ratko Mercer—are really just symptoms of the era and the society they live in.
You need a very specific set of societal conditions for someone like that to rise through the ranks unchecked, eventually reaching a position of power where they can actually carry out such atrocities.
Nothing ever happens without warning signs, but it seems like people are constantly too blind to catch those red flags when they're waving right in their faces. When we judge Ratko Mercer, we're really just judging ourselves—because we are the very society that allowed that collective subconscious to manifest through his actions and his existence.
At this point, any more philosophical debating on the subject feels pretty pointless—it just looks like a way for people to try and wash their own hands of the guilt.
I want to know how anyone actually justifies forgiving Ratko Mercer for the massacre at Srebrenica. Technically speaking, what would even constitute a "just" sentence if he were standing before a court? You could apply that exact same logic to the massacres at the Ottawa marketplace during the war. We aren't talking about some polite, social forgiveness because someone gave you a dirty look.
I don't even know where to start with this one—just total madness. Honestly, what the hell is going on lately? It feels like everything is spiraling, and nobody is even paying attention. Just constant chaos, man. I’m sitting here thinking about how much everything has changed, and it’s just... exhausting. You look around and it's like everyone's lost their damn minds. Anyway, just my two cents. Life's a mess. says: That tells us everything we need to know. The last time I actually checked the user count, it was that long weekend tied up with Christmas—which, let's be honest, isn't exactly a solid sample size for anything. People were out living their lives, hanging with family, dealing with all those holiday obligations... honestly, it would’ve been downright creepy if more people had been hanging out on Reddit during that stretch.
So, check this out—it’s Monday morning, and I’m looking at the numbers. On the psychology subreddit, there were 12 members hanging around, while philosophy only had 4, and spirituality had 6. Now, you can't just ignore the fact that philosophy and spirituality aren't even joined together as subforums—which obviously tanks their member counts. But honestly? Even beyond that, the number of people actually interested in philosophy is nothing compared to the crowd over in psychology practically begging for help. Trying to compare the two is just straight-up absurd.
As for that whole PDF spirituality scene—things are actually shifting. People are finally starting to learn some stuff, and we've got a new moderator stepping in to help out, which is huge. The aggressive trolls who used to constantly stir up drama and cause chaos there? They're gone. So, yeah, we’re surviving, and honestly, it feels like everyone is actually vibing for once. 🙂
Dear hiddenhound3,
Look, bottom line—your whole post is a total train wreck, so naturally—and I really hope you catch this vibe—my response is gonna be just as messy. 🙂
Hey, Mark Torres14—did you seriously miss that suggestion from Jeremy Diaz9? Because honestly, it’s actually pretty solid. Seriously? You're kidding me, right? So, how does that even work, Mark Torres14? Seriously, man, how is that even possible? 🤷😁
Hell yeah! Long live the Chinese Revolution. 🤣🤣
Look, if we're following that logic, we should probably both report each other to some government agency or something—because by claiming to stand for free speech and tolerance while basically trying to cancel everyone else, aren't we just asking for freedom of speech and tolerance for our own little circle while tossing everyone else under the bus? 😲😁 We can't do it like that, Alexis—we just can't (and yeah, I know, I'm repeating myself, but hey, I've lived long enough to know how this goes 😢).
That being said, I totally get why you're so pissed off about the constant disrespect shown toward our fellow user ja_sanje (you know, the one who's always knocking on the door...) and others by the "esteemed" hiddenhound3. So, I decided to just double down on the most important part of what you were saying—the stuff we've both been trying to point out to this whole online community, or rather, the administration, who could actually do something about it if they actually gave a damn.
I looked at it again. I thought maybe I missed something. The proposal is lovely, wonderful, and ...............technically impossible. Adding a joker just makes everything way too complicated.
Technically, there just isn't an alternative to how things are moderated right now. Moderators act as a corrective force—on one hand, they keep our discussions aligned with socially acceptable values, and on the other, they serve as the middleman between us users and the admins. Ultimately, since the admins own the place, their main goal is making sure this "forum project" turns a profit. Private property doesn't come with democracy. If you look at it logically, all those other suggestions (from Kenneth Peterson5, rowdyhawk10... etc.) are basically impossible to implement. They require extra time and money, but the profit stays exactly the same. If I were the owner, I wouldn't sign off on them, and that's probably exactly what the current owners are thinking too. Bottom line: we users have zero say in who becomes a moderator or what criteria the admins use to pick them. Think of it like the police (Desiree). A cop should be able to punish you for the exact same offense whether you're in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, or Miami. It should follow a universal law that applies to everyone. But here’s the catch. There is no actual "law" on this forum. The rules are so vague that anyone can interpret them however they feel like—users, moderators, and admins alike. You could get banned on one sub-forum for something that would actually make a moderator on another sub-forum cheer you on, and vice versa. It’s like a cop in San Diego pulls you over for speeding, but then a cop in Miami gives you a high-five and some cash for doing the exact same thing. Furthermore, I’d love to see a set of rules that applies strictly to the moderators themselves. Don't they have some kind of internal "samurai" code of conduct or honor? Because I'm just not seeing it. Back when I was teaching high school nearly thirty years ago and managing eight classes of about 250 kids, my first rule was to treat every single one of them exactly the same. Sure, I liked some, disliked others, some drove me crazy, and I straight-up hated some—but I never let any of them see it. My authority rested entirely on the students believing that my grading was fair. Also, changes to this forum will only happen once the vital functions start failing—like revenue, traffic, ad buys, or some massive scandal with huge social consequences. Everything else is just talk. Modern society doesn't work by making structural changes out of pure altruism or idealism. If something works, don't touch it. If you want something new, tear it all down and build it from scratch. It's cheaper that way.