Monsters Among Us

Nicholas Allen2 said:Exactly, a lack of empathy is the primary issue, despite everything else. But tell me more about Singapore; I'm curious now. What kind of laws and penalties are we talking about? Were you referring to animal cruelty, or did you mean penalties for abusing people? And if it's the latter, are they actually severe?

... Oh, they definitely are. I haven't come across specific data on animal cruelty laws (though I assume they exist), but when it comes to interpersonal crimes—and I won't get too far off track here—it looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital...t_in_Singapore

... and the results speak for themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/coun...ri-crime&all=1

(Assuming your English is up to speed 😉 )

I should clarify again: I'm not advocating for this, nor do I agree with all their laws, but the underlying concept is interesting to study...
... and we actually had a pretty compelling discussion over here regarding abuse, punishment, and upbringing:

I was scrolling through Facebook earlier and stumbled upon this group...
Punishment for the monster who cut off a dog's four legs

And the photo of the dog:




Honestly, humanity is a lost cause. This world is just going to hell...☕

man, this totally reminds me of this picture 😁

Brenda Cooper3 said:I was scrolling through Facebook earlier and stumbled upon this group...
Punishment for the monster who cut off a dog's four legs

And the photo of the dog:




Honestly, humanity is a lost cause. This world is just going to hell...☕

Only a complete psychopath could actually do something like that.😠
Seeing stuff like this makes me physically sick.

I was scrolling through the news the other day and came across this absolutely sickening story. Two guys in their early 20s went to some party and killed a girl. Then, get this—the next morning, they cooked her up with some potatoes and served it to her roommate, who had no idea what she was actually eating. 🤮
Honestly, at this point, I feel like nothing can even shock me anymore...☕

P.S. Thank God people like that are just outliers...

Brenda Cooper3 said:I was scrolling through Facebook earlier and stumbled upon this group...
Punishment for the monster who cut off a dog's four legs

And the photo of the dog:




Honestly, humanity is a lost cause. This world is just going to hell...☕

😲 This is twisted!

I remember reading in the news once about two twenty-year-old guys at a party who murdered a girl, then cooked her up with some potatoes the next morning and served her to her roommate, who had absolutely no idea what she was eating.
Nothing shocks me anymore...

P.S. Thank God people like that are the exception...

That's what I read, some brainless Goths🙄
Now they can just rot in prison

It’s honestly fascinating to me how, regardless of which sub-forum these topics pop up in, you always attract the exact same breed of lunatics. They all spout the same repetitive nonsense: advocating for punishments that would qualify as crimes against humanity.

You people genuinely have no clue what kind of garbage is leaking out of your brains. I sincerely hope this constant stream of writing is just a byproduct of some deep-seated, pathetic frustration over your third life goal, rather than evidence that you’re actual psychopaths.
And I don't get it—I really don't—why none of you are being penalized for this, especially since it's one of the most clearly defined rules in the site guidelines.

What’s even more interesting is watching the textbook cognitive dissonance play out here. You’ll read a description of an atrocity that you would personally commit, yet you react with absolute outrage if that crime was committed against someone outside of whatever ideology you've decided to cling to.

If everything you spew across this entire platform were taken at face value—since much of it is actually illegal because it glorifies heinous crimes—the world would be a terrifying place. Just look back at the military camps from the American Civil War. Take, for instance, certain infamous concentration camps. I’m picking an example that hits particularly close to home on purpose. Those camps didn't just hold civilians targeted for their identity; they also housed the depraved psychopaths from various paramilitary "special units" who performed acts so vile that normal people weep just hearing survivors recount them.
Why mention Lara? Because it was one of those prisons where Americans, acting without any shred of hesitation and driven by pure sadistic malice, committed horrors identical to those committed by the monsters they fought. It doesn't matter. Whether it's gouging the eyes out of an innocent shopkeeper snatched off the street in a van in the middle of the night, or brutalizing a military policeman caught in some small town, it’s all the same. A crime. Horrific, devastating, and completely beneath the standards of human decency.
People spend their lives in prison for the very things you guys sit here celebrating. What’s next? Are we going to start glorifying corporal punishment for cat abusers, or eventually anyone who simply gets on our nerves? If war breaks out with our neighbors again, are you going to start shouting "Mexican on the hill"?
I don't have the authority to ban you over on Psychology, but if you bring this trash over to Natural science, you aren't going to like the outcome.

You truly have no idea what you're playing with. You are messing with the very foundations of a civilized, humanistic society.

Just remember it once and for all: a crime is a crime. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.

Oh, placidjackal36, 🙄 I mean, at the end of the day, people are just fundamentally different... yeah, yeah, yeah, you know what I mean. ☕

placidjackal36 said:It’s honestly fascinating to me how, regardless of which sub-forum these topics pop up in, you always attract the exact same breed of lunatics. They all spout the same repetitive nonsense: advocating for punishments that would qualify as crimes against humanity.

You people genuinely have no clue what kind of garbage is leaking out of your brains. I sincerely hope this constant stream of writing is just a byproduct of some deep-seated, pathetic frustration over your third life goal, rather than evidence that you’re actual psychopaths.
And I don't get it—I really don't—why none of you are being penalized for this, especially since it's one of the most clearly defined rules in the site guidelines.

What’s even more interesting is watching the textbook cognitive dissonance play out here. You’ll read a description of an atrocity that you would personally commit, yet you react with absolute outrage if that crime was committed against someone outside of whatever ideology you've decided to cling to.

If everything you spew across this entire platform were taken at face value—since much of it is actually illegal because it glorifies heinous crimes—the world would be a terrifying place. Just look back at the military camps from the American Civil War. Take, for instance, certain infamous concentration camps. I’m picking an example that hits particularly close to home on purpose. Those camps didn't just hold civilians targeted for their identity; they also housed the depraved psychopaths from various paramilitary "special units" who performed acts so vile that normal people weep just hearing survivors recount them.
Why mention Lara? Because it was one of those prisons where Americans, acting without any shred of hesitation and driven by pure sadistic malice, committed horrors identical to those committed by the monsters they fought. It doesn't matter. Whether it's gouging the eyes out of an innocent shopkeeper snatched off the street in a van in the middle of the night, or brutalizing a military policeman caught in some small town, it’s all the same. A crime. Horrific, devastating, and completely beneath the standards of human decency.
People spend their lives in prison for the very things you guys sit here celebrating. What’s next? Are we going to start glorifying corporal punishment for cat abusers, or eventually anyone who simply gets on our nerves? If war breaks out with our neighbors again, are you going to start shouting "Mexican on the hill"?
I don't have the authority to ban you over on Psychology, but if you bring this trash over to Natural science, you aren't going to like the outcome.

You truly have no idea what you're playing with. You are messing with the very foundations of a civilized, humanistic society.

Just remember it once and for all: a crime is a crime. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.

Man, I can't believe a sane, normal person could actually write this stuff!
Who are you to judge people who just feel the need to express their opinions on these types of crimes???

Just like you accused those users of talking trash about those crimes, I can accuse you of talking trash about those users. It's the exact same thing.

If you've understood even half of what I'm trying to say, you won't dare show your face in the "Psychology" sub-forum ever again...

I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I’ve been thinking about how much people love to argue over things that don't actually change anything. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're the driver, but really, we're all just passengers in a vehicle with no steering wheel. Take politics, for example. You see people on social media losing their minds over some minor policy shift or a politician's clumsy wording, acting like it's the end of civilization. It reminds me of those old debates you'd see back in the day—everyone shouting, nobody listening, and at the end of the day, the grocery prices stay exactly the same. It's pure theater. We get caught up in the drama because humans are wired for conflict, but most of this stuff is just noise designed to keep us distracted while the real gears of the country turn behind the scenes. It’s similar to how people approach science or even psychology. There’s this tendency to take a single study or a headline and turn it into an absolute truth, ignoring the nuance. Real science isn't about being "right" immediately; it's about the constant, messy process of being wrong until you stumble upon something that holds water. But people want certainty. They want a black-and-white answer because living in the gray area is uncomfortable. I was talking to Nicholas Allen2 about this the other day, and he made a point about how we treat history. We look back at events like the American Civil War and try to fit them into neat little boxes to justify our current viewpoints. But history is rarely that tidy. It's a series of chaotic, overlapping interests and accidents. When we try to force it into a simple narrative, we aren't learning from it; we're just using it as a weapon for modern arguments. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back. If you spend all your energy fighting ghosts or debating people who aren't even listening, you're just exhausting yourself for zero gain. It's better to focus on what's tangible—your own life, your community, the actual stuff that affects your day-to-day reality. Everything else is just background noise.

To keep things running smoothly around here and ensure our discussions stay civil and productive, we need everyone to play by the rules. We want this Forum to be a place where people can actually talk without everything devolving into a mess. To keep that happening, the following is strictly prohibited on the Forum:

That’s a straight-up violation of the US Constitution.Just a quick heads-up for you on this one: Incitement to hatred or discrimination. Justifying or glorifying criminal acts is a slippery slope that we really need to talk about. It’s one of those things where people think they're being "edgy" or making a political point, but in reality, they're just eroding the very foundation of how a functional society operates. Think of it like this: if you start treating a breach of the law as some kind of heroic feat or a badge of honor, you aren't just defending an individual action—you're effectively dismantling the rule of law itself. It’s like trying to play a game of football while simultaneously cheering for the players who trip each other on purpose; eventually, the game becomes unplayable, and nobody wins. When we romanticize crime, we stop looking at the actual harm caused to victims and instead focus on a distorted, idealized version of the perpetrator. It creates this dangerous feedback loop where bad behavior is incentivized rather than corrected. You can disagree with a specific law or even argue that a legal system needs reform—which is a perfectly valid part of democratic discourse—but there is a massive, fundamental difference between criticizing a policy and actively celebrating a crime. One is civic engagement; the other is just chaos disguised as conviction....copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, and stuff like that.

Enough with the nonsense.
The psychology moderators have been a little preoccupied lately, which explains why things have gotten so rowdy around here over the last month. But honestly, once you guys feel the squeeze again, things will settle right back down. That’s just how you operate—you only really start functioning when the pressure is on.

Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before: honestly, screw anyone who needs a holy book or the Constitution to stop them from doing something horrific. If you need a manual or some divine oversight just to act like a decent human being, you’re a coward in my eyes. It’s weak.

What really gets me is when people claim someone was just "born that way"... like there's no way to change them...
They talk big, but they can't actually prove help isn't possible...

What, we're supposed to take two kids and raise them completely differently?

If we teach one kid that killing is okay... then sure, once they grow up, they’ll kill people thinking they're doing something good...

Then we take the second kid and raise them to be decent, teaching them to care for animals because they're sacred beings... that child will believe animals are sacred and act accordingly. If you told that kid, "Nah, animals are just primitive creatures," you'd hurt them. Why? Because they're deeply convinced those animals are sacred...

The point is... don't go judging others before you've judged yourself...

To some people, it's not "normal" if you swear... even if swearing feels totally normal to you...

Understanding should come first, I guess...

We aren't talking about monsters here. We're talking about a person who grew up around people who weren't self-aware...

That person is a victim, not a monster...

Can a child even be a monster?????? Man, oh man... if that's true, then we're all monsters... 🙂

placidjackal36 said:I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I’ve been thinking about how much people love to argue over things that don't actually change anything. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're the driver, but really, we're all just passengers in a vehicle with no steering wheel. Take politics, for example. You see people on social media losing their minds over some minor policy shift or a politician's clumsy wording, acting like it's the end of civilization. It reminds me of those old debates you'd see back in the day—everyone shouting, nobody listening, and at the end of the day, the grocery prices stay exactly the same. It's pure theater. We get caught up in the drama because humans are wired for conflict, but most of this stuff is just noise designed to keep us distracted while the real gears of the country turn behind the scenes. It’s similar to how people approach science or even psychology. There’s this tendency to take a single study or a headline and turn it into an absolute truth, ignoring the nuance. Real science isn't about being "right" immediately; it's about the constant, messy process of being wrong until you stumble upon something that holds water. But people want certainty. They want a black-and-white answer because living in the gray area is uncomfortable. I was talking to Nicholas Allen2 about this the other day, and he made a point about how we treat history. We look back at events like the American Civil War and try to fit them into neat little boxes to justify our current viewpoints. But history is rarely that tidy. It's a series of chaotic, overlapping interests and accidents. When we try to force it into a simple narrative, we aren't learning from it; we're just using it as a weapon for modern arguments. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back. If you spend all your energy fighting ghosts or debating people who aren't even listening, you're just exhausting yourself for zero gain. It's better to focus on what's tangible—your own life, your community, the actual stuff that affects your day-to-day reality. Everything else is just background noise.

To keep things running smoothly around here and ensure our discussions stay civil and productive, we need everyone to play by the rules. We want this Forum to be a place where people can actually talk without everything devolving into a mess. To keep that happening, the following is strictly prohibited on the Forum:

That’s a straight-up violation of the US Constitution.Just a quick heads-up for you on this one: Incitement to hatred or discrimination. Justifying or glorifying criminal acts is a slippery slope that we really need to talk about. It’s one of those things where people think they're being "edgy" or making a political point, but in reality, they're just eroding the very foundation of how a functional society operates. Think of it like this: if you start treating a breach of the law as some kind of heroic feat or a badge of honor, you aren't just defending an individual action—you're effectively dismantling the rule of law itself. It’s like trying to play a game of football while simultaneously cheering for the players who trip each other on purpose; eventually, the game becomes unplayable, and nobody wins. When we romanticize crime, we stop looking at the actual harm caused to victims and instead focus on a distorted, idealized version of the perpetrator. It creates this dangerous feedback loop where bad behavior is incentivized rather than corrected. You can disagree with a specific law or even argue that a legal system needs reform—which is a perfectly valid part of democratic discourse—but there is a massive, fundamental difference between criticizing a policy and actively celebrating a crime. One is civic engagement; the other is just chaos disguised as conviction....copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, and stuff like that.

Enough with the nonsense.
The psychology moderators have been a little preoccupied lately, which explains why things have gotten so rowdy around here over the last month. But honestly, once you guys feel the squeeze again, things will settle right back down. That’s just how you operate—you only really start functioning when the pressure is on.

Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before: honestly, screw anyone who needs a holy book or the Constitution to stop them from doing something horrific. If you need a manual or some divine oversight just to act like a decent human being, you’re a coward in my eyes. It’s weak.

🤦 Seriously, who is glorifying crimes in this thread??? Do you even know what "glorifying crime" actually means??

If you actually saw someone doing that here, then please, go ahead and quote it. Because if I’m reading you right, are you actually trying to suggest that we’re encouraging criminal activity through this discussion??

PS: Don't try to pull the "moderator" card on me in this argument. I couldn't care less about who holds a mod title or who has "lost their cool."

@placidjackal36: dude, I literally said that like several pages ago. 🙂 nice one, Einstein 😁

Anonymous said:🤦 Seriously, who is glorifying crimes in this thread??? Do you even know what "glorifying crime" actually means??

If you actually saw someone doing that here, then please, go ahead and quote it. Because if I’m reading you right, are you actually trying to suggest that we’re encouraging criminal activity through this discussion??

PS: Don't try to pull the "moderator" card on me in this argument. I couldn't care less about who holds a mod title or who has "lost their cool."

Look, some people just don't grasp the concept of glorifying crime because they think punishing a rapist is somehow a good thing. That’s why their input is completely irrelevant.
I don't need to quote anyone; this thread is barely five pages long, and it was already toxic by page one.
And honestly, I have zero interest in getting dragged into those pseudo-philosophical debates trolls love to start—the ones where they try to relativize actual evil. People with those kinds of "brilliant" minds are essentially the engines that drive wars, and frankly, talking about it is exhausting.

placidjackal36 said:I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I’ve been thinking about how much people love to argue over things that don't actually change anything. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone thinks they're the driver, but really, we're all just passengers in a vehicle with no steering wheel. Take politics, for example. You see people on social media losing their minds over some minor policy shift or a politician's clumsy wording, acting like it's the end of civilization. It reminds me of those old debates you'd see back in the day—everyone shouting, nobody listening, and at the end of the day, the grocery prices stay exactly the same. It's pure theater. We get caught up in the drama because humans are wired for conflict, but most of this stuff is just noise designed to keep us distracted while the real gears of the country turn behind the scenes. It’s similar to how people approach science or even psychology. There’s this tendency to take a single study or a headline and turn it into an absolute truth, ignoring the nuance. Real science isn't about being "right" immediately; it's about the constant, messy process of being wrong until you stumble upon something that holds water. But people want certainty. They want a black-and-white answer because living in the gray area is uncomfortable. I was talking to Nicholas Allen2 about this the other day, and he made a point about how we treat history. We look back at events like the American Civil War and try to fit them into neat little boxes to justify our current viewpoints. But history is rarely that tidy. It's a series of chaotic, overlapping interests and accidents. When we try to force it into a simple narrative, we aren't learning from it; we're just using it as a weapon for modern arguments. At the end of the day, I think we need to step back. If you spend all your energy fighting ghosts or debating people who aren't even listening, you're just exhausting yourself for zero gain. It's better to focus on what's tangible—your own life, your community, the actual stuff that affects your day-to-day reality. Everything else is just background noise.

To keep things running smoothly around here and ensure our discussions stay civil and productive, we need everyone to play by the rules. We want this Forum to be a place where people can actually talk without everything devolving into a mess. To keep that happening, the following is strictly prohibited on the Forum:

That’s a straight-up violation of the US Constitution.Just a quick heads-up for you on this one: Incitement to hatred or discrimination. Justifying or glorifying criminal acts is a slippery slope that we really need to talk about. It’s one of those things where people think they're being "edgy" or making a political point, but in reality, they're just eroding the very foundation of how a functional society operates. Think of it like this: if you start treating a breach of the law as some kind of heroic feat or a badge of honor, you aren't just defending an individual action—you're effectively dismantling the rule of law itself. It’s like trying to play a game of football while simultaneously cheering for the players who trip each other on purpose; eventually, the game becomes unplayable, and nobody wins. When we romanticize crime, we stop looking at the actual harm caused to victims and instead focus on a distorted, idealized version of the perpetrator. It creates this dangerous feedback loop where bad behavior is incentivized rather than corrected. You can disagree with a specific law or even argue that a legal system needs reform—which is a perfectly valid part of democratic discourse—but there is a massive, fundamental difference between criticizing a policy and actively celebrating a crime. One is civic engagement; the other is just chaos disguised as conviction....copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, and stuff like that.

Enough with the nonsense.
The psychology moderators have been a little preoccupied lately, which explains why things have gotten so rowdy around here over the last month. But honestly, once you guys feel the squeeze again, things will settle right back down. That’s just how you operate—you only really start functioning when the pressure is on.

Look, I’ve said this a thousand times before: honestly, screw anyone who needs a holy book or the Constitution to stop them from doing something horrific. If you need a manual or some divine oversight just to act like a decent human being, you’re a coward in my eyes. It’s weak.

Good grief, I can't believe someone actually typed this out. 😂😂

Look, have you even glanced at a history book?
Have you noticed how human behavior shifts right along with changes in the law?
Man, war itself is proof that human behavior—meaning crime—is often dictated by the "Constitution."

How can you claim monsters are everywhere and that laws or the Bible are the only things stopping them from acting out? That’s just plain ridiculous...

@placidjackal36
So, if I'm following your logic, you've never actually felt the urge to take someone for everything they're worth—it's just that the law and the Bible
have kept you in check?
That’s just one example, though. I'm not quite following... what exactly are you getting at here? 🤷

Anonymous said:Good grief, I can't believe someone actually typed this out. 😂😂

Look, have you even glanced at a history book?
Have you noticed how human behavior shifts right along with changes in the law?
Man, war itself is proof that human behavior—meaning crime—is often dictated by the "Constitution."

How can you claim monsters are everywhere and that laws or the Bible are the only things stopping them from acting out? That’s just plain ridiculous...

How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? (That was a rhetorical question; if you need a definition for "rhetorical," go find a dictionary.)

Yeah, in case you weren't aware, there are plenty of people—and we're talking about the vast majority here—who don't commit crimes simply because they fear the consequences:

1. Consequences defined by a legal state (like losing your freedom or paying a massive fine)
2. Consequences defined by a holy book like the Bible or the Quran, where an invisible being threatens you with eternal burning beneath the Earth's lithosphere—basically, hell.

When government laws collapse—take periods of total anarchy caused by wars, for example—people act revoltingly. Most people start acting like animals.
A smaller segment might hold steady because of religion, but once they lose faith, they fall too.
An extremely tiny sliver of the population has enough actual character to keep them from committing atrocities.
Basically, people are nasty, and they need artificial boundaries because they almost always find some way to justify their worst impulses.

You'll learn it in school.

Anonymous said:@placidjackal36
So, if I'm following your logic, you've never actually felt the urge to take someone for everything they're worth—it's just that the law and the Bible
have kept you in check?
That’s just one example, though. I'm not quite following... what exactly are you getting at here? 🤷

I keep forgetting how much information spreads online. 🤦

No, it wasn't the law or any holy books that stopped me (I'm not religious)—it was my conscience. I have impulses just like everyone else.

placidjackal36 said:How old are you, if you don't mind me asking? (That was a rhetorical question; if you need a definition for "rhetorical," go find a dictionary.)

Yeah, in case you weren't aware, there are plenty of people—and we're talking about the vast majority here—who don't commit crimes simply because they fear the consequences:

1. Consequences defined by a legal state (like losing your freedom or paying a massive fine)
2. Consequences defined by a holy book like the Bible or the Quran, where an invisible being threatens you with eternal burning beneath the Earth's lithosphere—basically, hell.

When government laws collapse—take periods of total anarchy caused by wars, for example—people act revoltingly. Most people start acting like animals.
A smaller segment might hold steady because of religion, but once they lose faith, they fall too.
An extremely tiny sliver of the population has enough actual character to keep them from committing atrocities.
Basically, people are nasty, and they need artificial boundaries because they almost always find some way to justify their worst impulses.

You'll learn it in school.

I keep forgetting how much information spreads online. 🤦

No, it wasn't the law or any holy books that stopped me (I'm not religious)—it was my conscience. I have impulses just like everyone else.

Aha, so it was your conscience that held you back!!!!!
See? You answered your own question. Where do you think that "conscience" even came from, my friend??
Did your conscience just drop out of a tree like a ripe peach??

No, your conscience exists because you literally can't bring yourself to commit a crime, because that's exactly how society and your environment conditioned you.

What makes you think that if you had been raised from birth to be a killer (just read a bit of history and you'll see plenty of examples), your "CONSCIENCE" would stop you from killing??

You have no right to judge people. You don't know what someone has been through. Being a "conscientious" person should mean helping those people, not condemning them—after all, weren't it those same "conscientious" types who introduced the electric chair??

Edit: Why do you think your moral limit isn't artificial??? It's not like some divine miracle placed a boundary on you the moment you were born...

So I took a look... and honestly, there are people out there who would literally want to gouge the eyes out of the guy who kicked that kitten...
I mean, what can you even say besides 🤦? Personally, I don't give a damn about posts like that. I’m actually surprised you reacted the way you did.

It’s not like these people are actually celebrating a crime or anything; most people just don't think before they type. Hell, you read some absolute garbage on internet forums all the time...

... if we actually want to build a civilized, humanistic society that works for everyone, then everything this lady is holding in her left hand becomes utterly meaningless if her right hand is empty (whether she’s gripping a pencil, a trumpet, a paper windmill, or a peacock feather, for all that matters) :



... because at the end of the day, whether people care to admit it or not, humans are, first and foremost, just another kind of animal...