Posts by Mark Torres14

Only real leaders have the guts to admit when they're wrong. And the truly great ones? They actually go out and ask for forgiveness from the people they wronged. Major props to Kenneth Peterson5.🙏

analogsurfer15 said:Whoa, hold up—of course forgiveness is possible. I'm not saying it’s always easy or even doable, but it can happen, provided certain things fall into place. And look, without getting bogged down in the philosophical definitions of what "forgiveness" actually means, I kind of agree with what someone else mentioned earlier... you need two people for this to work: the one who messed up and the victim. But here's the kicker—it’s the perpetrator who really needs the drive to seek it. Because if they don't care, then what's the point? Why would I even bother forgiving someone who doesn't give a damn? We aren't saints, after all... we can't just hand out grace to everyone left and right unless we're trying to buy our way into heaven. But I don't think we're talking about that religious, Christian type of absolution here. I mean the kind of forgiveness that fixes a broken relationship between two people in this life—where one person's actions turned the other into a victim, right?

Forgiveness works if the person at fault actually realizes they screwed someone over. And that realization only happens if they can actually step into the victim's shoes. People say emotions are the key part of that, and yeah, obviously they are... without empathy, there’s no conscience. Sure, maybe some rigid moral code could guide them, making them feel guilty because they broke some ethical rule, but honestly? I think most people's moral compasses are built on that initial, gut-level emotional connection to the victim. It's that feeling where you realize, "Man, anyone could be in their position through no fault of their own."

Bottom line? The person who did wrong has to want it, and the victim can only grant it if they are absolutely certain the other person gets what they did. They have to be able to feel the pain or the loss caused by that person... that's where a sense of justice comes in, which we were talking about before. Is that always going to happen? Probably not... except when it does.🤔

Nice one, analogsurfer15. You're stuck on the same thing I am: the humiliation of the person begging for forgiveness. How do you even live with yourself afterward and pretend nothing happened?
From where I'm standing, it takes at least two generations before you can even talk about true forgiveness or reconciliation.
If anyone held onto more hatred in Europe after World War II, it was the Frenchmen and the Germans. It’s only now that their grandkids are building a unified Europe together. It'll be the same here. We won't be able to talk about "normalizing" relations with the descendants of those who wronged us until our children's children take over—once they aren't weighed down by the baggage of old partisans versus collaborators, or defenders versus those who didn't fight. Until then, any talk of forgiveness is just cheap political conformism used for PR.
If forgiveness actually exists, it moves at a snail's pace.

bluebison70 said:I guess I’m not really trying to lean on... I guess... I don't really know how to put this, but maybe just my own thing? Just something of my own, I suppose....character. My character isn't exactly... I guess you could say it’s just not built that way. Maybe I'm just being too hard on myself, though. It's hard to pin down, really. I guess I should probably start by saying... well, maybe there isn't much to say yet. Just sitting here, thinking about things, I suppose. It feels like everything is moving so fast lately, doesn't it? I might be overthinking it, though. That's just how I am, I guess. Anyway... what was I getting at? Maybe nothing specific. Just a thought floating around....but mine. And I'm pretty sure it isn't. It feels... I don't know, just incredibly cruel. Honestly, it strikes me as downright misanthropic. I guess... I just feel like I should have the right to be a Christian, you know? To actually live out those values without everyone constantly breathing down my neck or judging me for it. It feels like it should be simple, maybe, but sometimes it doesn't feel that way at all.

analogsurfer15:

If you were actually real friends, I guess... I don't know... you probably wouldn't even be bringing this up on a forum like this.

I think a friend of mine is actually on this forum.

analogsurfer15: I guess I should start by saying... well, I'm not entirely sure where to begin with this. It feels like we're circling the same drain, doesn't it? Maybe that's just me being overly cautious, but I can't help but feel like we've been here before. Regarding what steelridge58 was saying earlier... I mean, I see the point, I really do. But there's this other side to it, isn't there? A sort of shadow element that we tend to ignore when things get heated. It’s like when you’re driving through a quiet suburb in Ohio and suddenly realize how much is actually happening behind those closed doors. You don't see it, but it's there. Constant. I was reading some older texts—not that I'm an expert or anything, I just stumble upon things—and it reminded me of how much we rely on these established patterns. We crave them, I think. Even when they're flawed. It’s almost human, in a way. Or maybe it's just a flaw in our logic. I'm probably overthinking this. It's hard not to. Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that we need to be more careful about how we interpret these shifts. If we just jump to conclusions, we might miss the nuance. And the nuance is usually where the truth hides, if it's even there to begin with. Just a thought. A very small, perhaps insignificant thought.

I mean, I don't know... maybe it isn't even about some kind of simple forgiveness. It feels like it might be something else entirely, I guess. Or perhaps it's just not that straightforward. So, he's actually the boss at the company where you work... I guess that changes things quite a bit, doesn't it? It’s a little more complicated when there's that kind of hierarchy involved. Maybe. Maybe his connections, or certain people he knows, or even just the circle he hangs out in... I guess that kind of thing could actually end up being pretty useful to you. It’s hard to say for sure, but who knows? Sometimes it's those little things. I guess... I don't know. It’s a bit of an awkward thing to even say out loud, isn't it? But, if I'm being completely honest... yeah. There's something about his wife that just... well, she's quite striking. I suppose you could say I find her appealing. Maybe it's just the way she carries herself, or something else entirely. I can't quite put my finger on it. It’s a strange feeling, though. I shouldn't really be thinking about it, I suppose. I guess... maybe it’s just how I’m wired, but there's this part of my ego that actually kind of enjoys it—you know? When people around you see you being able to forgive someone. It feels like a statement. But if I'm being honest with myself, I think I don't even really see the person I'm forgiving as a human being anymore. Not really. It's more like they just become this sort of living proof... a way to demonstrate my own capacity for grace. It sounds a bit cold when I say it out loud, I suppose.

I mean, I guess you could say this whole thing is just a textbook case of projection. Maybe. It feels that way to me, anyway.

analogsurfer15:

I see you haven't forgotten what they did to you.

I haven't forgotten, and I don't think he has either. Honestly, though, I don't see how that really serves as an argument for anything. It’s all in the past now. We just have to move forward—that's just how life works, I guess.

analogsurfer15:

It kind of reminded me of that one Nietzsche quote, I guess.

I mean, I guess... Nietzsche probably wouldn't have gone for that kind of statement in this particular context. Maybe. He might have seen it differently.

I'm not really looking for a chat here. I don't care for that overly personal tone you're using with me. If we could just stick to the facts—keep it strictly business, if you will—that would be fine. But as for any personal attacks? Yeah, I’m just not interested in that.

Look, I had zero intention of personally insulting you, let alone your family or friends.
I view this as a debate, and there shouldn't be anything personal involved. It should go without saying that we don't always have to agree during a discussion. And if you're going to engage, the least you can do is actually present some arguments.
If you don't want to debate me, just say "I don't want to," and I'll leave you alone.

bluebison70 said:

I suppose I should mention... servantes. It’s one of those things that stays on my mind more than it probably should, I guess. Just a thought drifting through. kaže:
I’m honestly at a loss for words here. I know a ton of people, and you’re really the first person I’ve ever heard of who got burned by a friend over a loan—and then, somehow, you guys are still buddies like nothing even happened once the debt was cleared. It’s just... unusual. I mean, either you’re some kind of saint, which seems unlikely, or maybe, I don't know, there's more to the story than what you're letting on. I suspect this might not be entirely about forgiveness after all.

I wouldn't call myself a saint; I’m certainly nowhere near that level. I guess... well, maybe I have my flaws. I'm definitely far from being perfect.

It’s not just an opinion, really... it's more like a fundamental truth. We aren't all cut from the same cloth, and I suppose it’s a mistake to judge everyone else based on how we act ourselves. Some people, well, they just seem to thrive on bitterness. They find someone to resent every single day, it seems. For me, though... my whole philosophy is just to lead with love. I mean, what does money actually matter when you weigh it against a real human connection or a true friend? It doesn't, I guess. And besides, none of us are exactly perfect, are we?

Sorry, but given my line of work, I'm a bit of an "unbelieving Thomas." What you just said sounds like nothing more than empty slogans.
Can you actually get specific? How exactly did this friend screw you over, and what kind of fallout did you have to deal with because of it?
Your post is loaded with clichés. It makes me want to keep my guard up. I usually steer clear of people who pepper their everyday speech with maxims. I hope I'm wrong about you.

bluebison70 said:Of course we are. We’re still friends, and I don't really see why that would be any strange at all. People make mistakes, I suppose, and people forgive... they have to. Maybe the true measure of a person lies in their ability to reconcile and offer forgiveness, rather than holding onto hate or seeking revenge. Because, well, that kind of thing just breeds more resentment and more retaliation, and it just goes on like that for the rest of your life.

Peace, forgiveness, and love—those are basically the three core pillars of Christian ethics.

I'm speechless. I know plenty of people, and you're the first one I've ever heard of whose friend screwed them over on a loan and then they just stayed buddies after it was paid back like nothing happened. Either you're a saint or, more likely, your story is total BS and has nothing to do with forgiveness.

I'm reading this and I don't get it at all. Where is Nicole James?
I mean, I assume the criticism is actually aimed at him, right?
What is his deal? Is he some kind of godfather or something? He’s got an entire legal team on retainer.

bluebison70 said:Hemingway wrote:

I went through a situation that was pretty much identical, I guess. I managed to pull through the debt and the whole financial mess, but my friend... well, he wasn't so lucky. He was injured in the accident so badly that he’s been stuck in a wheelchair ever since. If he ever needs someone to co-sign a loan just to get some new equipment or better mobility aids, I’d gladly do it. Maybe it's the least I can do.

If I'm getting this right, we're talking about forgiveness here. You know, forgiving someone who screwed us over, killed one of our own, or just committed some other evil act when they weren't forced into it. Anything caused by circumstances beyond their control—like a freak accident, being coerced, or choosing between saving your own skin or your family's—that isn't really "forgiveness."
I don't know where your specific situation fits, but if your friend suffered an accident, it’s your duty to help him out however you can. Even if that means helping with a loan if you're able. On the flip side, if he straight-up screwed you over and then had an accident later, that doesn't change whether you forgive him or not.
For some reason, the way you described this makes me think you're feeling pity.
In my book, pity is way more lethal than forgiveness.
Either love me or hate me, but don't pity me. Why do you think that is?
Anyway, tell me, are you guys still friends like nothing ever happened?

steelskipper5 said:So, let's put it this way: either sanction the reported post the way it deserves, or I am personally going to file a report with the police regarding criminal threats made on this forum, and then you guys can try explaining yourselves to the cops, the admins, and Andrew himself.

Since I apparently have to use a sledgehammer to make people respect the law, so be it.

Your move, dear moderators.

You can only file a request to initiate criminal proceedings based on suspicion of making a threat under Section 129 of the Penal Code, and that's only if the threat was directed specifically at you. This isn't something the state prosecutes automatically on its own; it requires a formal complaint from the victim.

bluebison70 said:Forgiveness is always on the table. It’s just a matter of timing and who you're dealing with—their character, their morals, their culture, especially their religion.

......Maybe that’s just how nature works, but it isn't civilized. And we call ourselves civilized, don't we?

I'm not so sure about that.

Since we're debating this, let's look at a slightly milder example. Something "topical," if you want to use today's political jargon.
Imagine you co-signed a loan for your best friend. He stops paying it back because he decided to go out and buy a brand-new Mercedes, leaving you to deal with the bank coming after your paycheck and your assets. Because of the financial mess he caused, your marriage falls apart, your kids end up in the care of the Department of Social Services, and you're stuck dealing with diabetes and high blood pressure. Meanwhile, your "friend" still won't pay a dime, claiming he's broke because he transferred everything to his wife's name. He keeps asking, "can you forgive me?" or whatever way James Lee77 would put it, acting like nothing happened and begging to be friends again.
By your logic, it's just a question of time and "civilization" before you forgive him. We're human beings, aren't we?😁

When you know exactly who the criminal is, there’s no such thing as forgiveness. The second a victim gets enough power or a shot at payback, they’re going to take it. It’s human nature.
Forgiveness is nothing more than social conformity. It’s what people spout when they haven't actually been through anything themselves.
It’s hard to forgive an entire nation—not that anyone with half a brain should be generalizing like that—let alone an individual where the guilt is undeniable.
Forgiveness isn't a matter of logic; it's an emotion. And you can't fake how you feel.

Look, this is a heavy topic and there aren't any easy answers here.
Take Chechnya, for example.
War. Dzhokhar Dudayev. A population of 3.5 million. After four years of fighting, only 1.6 million people are left.
The Russians who lost those early battles have become so powerful they can basically just carry out a pogrom.
What do you even do when things hit that point? You've got justice, truth, and world opinion on your side—but you're staring down the barrel of someone literally trying to wipe you off the map.
Naturally, that left them with only one way to fight back: terrorism. Just look at what happened at that theater in Moscow.
It’s the same story with Tibet. Either submit or cease to exist. Even terrorism doesn't work there.
That’s exactly why I think the Dalai Lama is doing the only thing he possibly can: keeping the Tibet issue in the global spotlight. That public pressure indirectly forces the Chinese government to watch how they treat Tibetans. Look at the Olympics as an example.
That’s precisely why America needs to be fully committed to NATO and integrated with Europe. You don't want some Russian or someone else coming along tomorrow and knocking you out with a single blow.
What good is freedom if you aren't around to enjoy it?

coastalskipper92 said:We convince ourselves we exist because we think—because we possess the certainty of perception...
Yet everything we perceive through that limited lens of what can be "known"... is merely a tiny fragment of a much larger reality that remains impossible to truly grasp or put into words.....

Aliens would likely be part of that vast unknown... whereas what we call "the world" is just that narrow slice they might point us toward.... so, one could say we exist "incorrectly" until we finally realize the truth.
p.s. They probably wouldn't look like the aliens from some Hollywood blockbuster, with the giant eyes and all that.
It’s strange how even when we try to contemplate something abstract, like an extraterrestrial, our minds immediately serve up a pre-packaged image.
And there are levels of understanding that require more than mere intellect; they aren't reached simply by thinking.
So, a person doesn't ascend through thought alone, nor do they simply stand there existing—is. One doesn't rise by peddling hollow clichés like "I think, therefore I am" just to sound profound to someone else. ☕
After all, everyone is just looking for someone to blame.

Does consciousness, regardless of where it comes from, need to have similar or identical characteristics to even qualify as consciousness?
If so, then the whole "I think, therefore I am" thing still holds water.🤷
☕

Sam Miller82 said:I suspect religions would be the first institutions to lose their relevance.
It seems unlikely that such an alien intelligence would subscribe to the concept of religion as we understand it within our civilization.
In my view, if the human race were to encounter a civilization far more advanced than our own, we might find that we aren't even worth their interest.

This is a fascinating question, and I wouldn't be so quick to rule things out.

The real question is whether an intelligence capable of interstellar travel follows a developmental path similar to ours.
Are there fundamental milestones any species must hit to reach that level of advancement, regardless of their origin?
Basically, do social laws—political, sociological, philosophical—function as universal constants in this universe?
For instance:
- social structures (groups vs. individuals or some mix)
- the historical evolution of socio-economics
- technological application
- culture
- and eventually, religion... etc.

I might not be articulating this perfectly, but you get my point.

wiredsailor10 said:I agree with the first point. Religion and evolution aren't actually as different as people claim (that's just my theory 😉), because they actually share something in common—absolutism.

As for the second part, hmm, I think that's possible to explain. Since anything is possible for God, that includes both what we know and what we don't. 😕

I wasn't even talking about religion. I was talking about mandated rituals. Prayer, kneeling, confession, bowing... all that stuff.
First off, if an alien intelligence actually existed, it would call the whole concept of organized religion—and especially the idea that you *have* to follow specific religious rituals—straight into question.

coastalskipper92 said:I suppose, therefore, I exist😉

A flawed premise, if you ask me... because there is also everything we fail to consider—the very things capable of altering our entire perspective—which ultimately defines us

So, this "us" we think we understand? It is nothing more than a deliberate coincidence

My bad, coastalskipper92. I didn't catch what you meant. 🤷Can you actually expand on that point? Give us some more detail.

wiredsailor10 said:Well, I guess what comes to mind as a possibility here is evolutionary theory.
🤷

Obviously, in a hypothetical scenario like this, evolutionary theory would take the biggest hit.
We'd have to rethink what "life" even means in any form. Just the idea that two separate evolutionary paths exist in the universe would trigger massive questions:
Is there just one single evolution spanning the entire cosmos where we’re just a tiny fraction, or are there multiple, distinct evolutions? If it's the former, it gives massive ammunition to anyone claiming life didn't start on Earth but came from deep space.
On the flip side, if there are separate evolutions, comparing them would be fascinating. Do they share common elements—universal laws that hold true regardless of the planet or star system they emerge in?
Even if nothing else, we'd know our own evolution isn't just some isolated quirk of complex matter, but something non-local that relates to the whole universe.

Plus, this would absolutely wreck any philosophical theories built around humans—basically, anthropocentrism. Creationism would definitely be called into question, and there's a huge chance we'd approach religious concepts from a completely different angle.
God, who would now have to account for another intelligence, wouldn't be served by traditional rituals and prayers anymore, nor would those things feel like an obligation for a "true believer."
The same goes for fundamental philosophical problems like existence, being, ethics, or the source of morality (looking at you, Kant). We’d likely pivot toward totally unexpected perspectives. I can't even imagine what happens when you mix our way of thinking with the culture of a consciousness that developed entirely apart from us.
Then there's the question of whether such a being—one capable of interstellar travel and advanced tech—must have its own versions of law, morality, politics, and economics, or if those concepts are strictly human constructs.
And of course, there's the physical form of alien life. I'm not talking about looks, since we don't know that, but rather their social structure. They might exist as a collective instead of individuals like us, or maybe they aren't social beings at all and live as solitary units. Something along the lines of the creatures described in Vernor Vinge's "fire above the depths," where a single individual actually consists of four to six physically separate entities.
Just throwing ideas out there. We could dive deeper into any of these if you guys are interested.

I started training Aikido over thirty years ago. Somewhere between 1972 and 1974, if I remember correctly. I think I was testing for belts back then—green or brown, I can't be sure anymore. In our small town, a Canadian instructor showed up and opened an Aikido and Kendo course, so we all signed up. Later, Krešo came back from the USA, and my whole generation ended up pivoting to basketball instead, which became my main sport for the next twenty years.
What drew me to Aikido was the elegance of the movements, though Kendo was definitely more exciting. I remember we were all obsessed with those blind swordmasters you see in Japanese movies who could master a blade perfectly.
Nowadays, a journalist friend of mine runs an Aikido club in San Diego.
I still think about getting back into it, even if the fact that I'm just too big and heavy now (110 kg) holds me back. But honestly, in Aikido, age and weight don't even matter.

wiredsailor10 said:Hmm, interesting. After thinking about it for a second, I guess it turns out the theses that seem the most convincing right now are exactly the ones that would end up being obsolete.

Interesting. Which theories are we talking about, bohemia?

Chris Peterson53 said:A whole bunch of non-serious sci-fi writers have already weighed in on your question.
Each one brings their own set of assumptions and explanations to the table.
But let’s look at the bigger picture: if a single race possessed internal standards based on skin color rather than merit, how could that ever curb its own arrogance or conceit?
From a scientific standpoint, things would inevitably shift—because you simply couldn't ignore the distinctions between us and them, whether we're talking about raw data or massive scientific breakthroughs. And yet, even today, you still find people—some even right here on this forum—clinging to the idea that the Earth is hollow or that the Apollo moon landings were faked.
Certain perspectives in humanity NEVER go out of style, regardless of what the scientific consensus or the hard evidence says.
The human race will likely never fully accept a simple truth: that man is not the ultimate yardstick for everything in existence.
It’s a psychological defense mechanism, plain and simple.
So, let me flip the script and ask you this: what actually happens to humanity when we finally come face-to-face with an alien civilization that views us the way we view primitive cavemen?

By our standards? It’s exactly what happened to Native Americans in the deep wilderness. We’d probably just be happy if they set up a reservation for us.
But aliens don't have to play by our rules. For all we know, they might just see us as nothing more than a steak on a dinner plate.

Ashley Ramirez41 said:

Not even close—it’s neither clear nor precise... I mean, come on. The beings in "The Word for World is Forest" are totally humanoid
and don't have anything in common with bacteria (which are more like plants in this context), so
what, is the title just meant to mess with us? 😕

You're right. Some people just don't get it.