trenton

Were you guys thinking I was actually planning to murder someone? I mentioned in the opening that this is obviously a bad idea and it should be avoided. Of course that would be insane. What matters for my purposes is understanding the perspective of violent people while integrating a shadow side from unresolved harm while my therapists repeatedly recommend I date. I'm just really afraid of dating because I learned that intimacy was unsafe, but my therapists recommend it still. It is better to address these sorts of things now rather than in a relationship. If I enter a romantic relationship, I still intend to ask a woman, "would you murder me if I cheated on you? I know some would. Personally, I wouldn't like it if you cheated on me, but I won't murder you for it. I just want to know what your standards are like in a relationship. I'm not trying to threaten you or anything." I thought this was a fair and normal question for dating.

@Emotionalmosquito I googled what mean girl refers to. I have many different names for it. She could be a narcissist. She could be a devil. Basically the qualities men refer when calling a woman a "bitch" includes playing the victim, spreading lies and gossip, picking fights, enforcing loyalty, and so forth. I don't want to be sexist by calling her a bitch. I don't want to be overly clinical by calling her a narcissist. So I just call her a devil and tell her to go to hell where she belongs. In your case you call her a mean girl. I did have homicidal thoughts toward family members who treated me this way. My family had some mean girls in it.

This is an interesting idea. I recall that religion used to value the virgin archetype because of what it symbolically represented about a person's character such as the virgin Mary. This is not sexually piety, but also humility, charity, honesty, and so forth. A close opposite to the virgin archetype is the whore. The whore was not originally intended to just mean how many sexual partners a woman had. More importantly, the key characteristics of this archetype was its deceptive nature. It is a person who would offer you love in order to trick you and betray you. Cheating would be an example of a betrayal, but the archetype is much broader in terms of deception and betrayal under the guise of love. In terms of why men murder intimate partners, it often involves the perception that this person is a whore and she betrayed you in some way. Important not to overlook that the whore archetype applies just as easily to men. There can be men who love bomb a woman in order to decieve her and harm her in some way. This was documented in human trafficking cases of a woman entering a relationship that isolated her from her family. Obviously a rapist is a whore as well, and in that case whore is probably an understatement. How common do you think it is for women to trick men like this and betray them?

I think women are fine with mind games. Judit Polgar is a good example given a decent childhood environment with training. I think in competitive sports most women just aren't as interested. The competitive mindset in outperforming others seems to be more in men in these fields. You can also look at debate teams. Some women claim there is misogyny, but at the same time I think most women aren't as interested in intellectual sports compared to men, though they can be good at them given interest and training. When I do play with the average woman in a game like chess, I notice they tend to be way less confident than men. Men act like they are definitely going to crush me. Women don't really hide their nervousness. I notice they have a lot more doubts than men up front, thinking it is very complicated and they can't do it. They are afraid to even learn. However, given interest and confidence I think a woman could be a decent player, but they tend to be less interested in this compared to men.

I'd love to do psychedelics, but I'm unable to at this time. The most I have ever done were some cannabis gummies which make me sound spiritual when talking. There is a Ketamine treatment center for depression if that counts, but I need to be at least two years since being hospitalized with depression. I would like to verify whatever spiritual wisdom I can, but for now many of these positions are unfalsifiable from my standpoint. For example, Leo claimed that my father is literally looking through my eyes right now. I'm not sure how I can murder an imaginary other if the other doesn't actually exist, but is merely an imaginary construct. In terms of murdering someone who is me, there is still jumping off of a bridge for example. It can be done, but it isn't fun. Concerning spiritual wisdom, I believed it overlapped with having compassion for people who do evil things and people who harmed me. Therefore, criminology was a means of studying evil and noticing the similarities in myself. It is ultimately part of a broader project of deconstructing the illusion of evil which doesn't actually exist. I have learned not to judge myself for having homicidal thoughts toward others. I have been hurt badly, but I won't be carrying out any murders any time soon. I can give you a couple of other threads in which I explored compassion for evil people as it was part of my impression of spiritual wisdom translated into criminological studies. I am now attempting to address what I would consider a shadow. It is unresolved hatred directed at myself and others. This is part of why I ask these questions. Ultimately, I am trying to learn self love, but it is hard for me to do. I have been struggling my whole life to do this, so I apply the compassion to myself when applying it to evil people. I think we need to be careful with how we define spiritual wisdom. The problem is that unfalsifiable positions can define wisdom in an endless number of ways unless we know what is true. There were some people in this thread claiming the Ten Commandments were spiritual wisdom. There are also spiritual teachers claiming that morality is relative and judgment can be transcended. In my case, my goal is to love myself even though I have unresolved hatred that festers into the desire to harm myself or others. The limitation of compassion for relative evil is that it doesn't logically get you to metaphysical oneness which is a separate claim regarding the nature of love. My present metaphysical framework is "I don't know."

Can we use something like this to argue that changing gender is natural? Religion likes to site natural law a lot to argue against things like masturbation and homosexuality, both of which animals also do because it is perfectly natural. There are also animals which are both male and female.

I'm not sure why these fears are irrational. Can you define what an irrational fear is versus a rational fear? Which fears do you think are irrational and how do you know? Also I definitely agree on intrusive thoughts. I have those all the time and I can't help it. It includes intrusive thoughts of harming others. I was told it was either OCD or ADHD. The actual diagnosis is likely multiple, but I still want to feel safe and acceptable. I also did discuss this with my therapists and psychiatrists too. Some say PTSD, others say CPTSD it more accurate. I tried therapy, but I am now thinking I need to stop trying to change myself under constant existential stakes. I don't know what I would actually need, but finding a therapist that would be good for me is hard. There are insurance barriers and rare specialties required for me that I can't access. This is why the mental health system is broken and can't necessarily help people in my position.

@Judy2 nice historical examples. It is good to know that wives murdering husbands has become less common due to allowing them the freedom to divorce a husband. It sounds like although abusive relationships are still awful the ability to divorce is better than forcing people to stay together. Society must allow these relationships to end when they don't work even if divorce court is its own nightmare. It is still preferable to not being able to go to divorce court.

@Jannes People actually have committed murder over a restaurant getting their order wrong. I asked Google and here was the response. have murders happened over restaurants getting an order wrong? AI Overview Yes, multiple murders and fatal shootings have occurred due to arguments over incorrect restaurant orders. Minor disputes involving fast-food and takeout errors have repeatedly escalated into lethal violence in the United States. [1, 2, 3, 4] Documented Incidents McDonald's Filet-O-Fish Dispute (Houston, TX): In May 2024, a customer became irate over a missing $1.41 burger patty and started shouting slurs at staff. When a bystander, attorney Jeffrey Limmer, stepped in to calm the situation, the customer retrieved a gun from his car and shot and killed him. [1, 2] Checkers Dispute (Florida): An argument between a customer and a restaurant worker over a food order escalated into a fatal shooting, resulting in first-degree murder charges against the employee. [1] Harvard Avenue Chicken Order Dispute (Cleveland, OH): In May 2024, a 37-year-old man was shot and killed outside a restaurant following a heated argument over an order of chicken. [1] McDonald's Confrontation (Hendersonville, NC): A dispute involving a fast-food order and subsequent confrontation at a McDonald's led to a woman being shot and killed, with an employee later charged with second-degree murder. [1] Café Ole River Walk Shooting (San Antonio, TX): In March 2025, an internal argument and altercation between restaurant workers over an order error resulted in the fatal shooting of a 47-year-old employee. [1]

In all scenarios I have not murdered anyone yet, but there are examples directed a family members. I don't have a gun though so it would be impractical. I would be dead already if I actually had a fire arm. This gets much more difficult when you don't have a gun for murder or suicide. It is for this reason why I am trying to leave my family forever. I would rather get far away from them rather than putting myself in a position in which I could realistically harm them or myself. The thought of making them suffer what they made me feel starts to feel enjoyable. So far I stay quiet and keep my distance because my perspective won't be heard anyway. This is common behavior in grievance based offenders for murder. It leads to constant rumination and feeling stuck in life. They typically have a complex narrative about why they felt justified and why this person made their life unlivable. In this case, it isn't just one scenario. It is my entire life time since early childhood. It is the cumulative pain across many scenarios and how they interact with each other which makes the pain feel like enough for my life to be unlivable. Therefore, I would not want to kill a person over just one thing. It would need to be an extensive, complex grievance rooted in a sense of being severely damaged beyond repair. From that standpoint, if I were to kill someone, it would have to be someone I know very well. Only someone I know very well could harm me badly enough to feel justified in killing them. A stranger couldn't feasibly cause me this degree of pain which requires betrayal to the point that I have become disillusioned with love and feel empty inside. I try to love but feel incapable as a result of what I have become. I wish I could change who I am, but I can't make the thoughts stop. The main offenders are my Mom, my Dad, and my older sister. They have made me feel like my life is unlivable unless I find some external project to justify my existence. If love is too easily betrayed and exploited, then I try to ground myself in achievements instead. Through being useful and trying to find a way to make the world a better place, maybe I can find a reason not to commit suicide or murder. The mental health system is crap though and they can't actually solve whatever it is about me that makes me think and act like this. I can't either. I tried to change, but the best I can do is find something else away from people like this. From this point of view, it is probably misleading to try to point to isolated examples. In order to motivate murder, it would require an entire life time of severe pain, betrayal, isolation, and a sense of being invisible to others with nothing but your own thoughts to help you guide your way through life. I hate having no reliable guidance, so I have to do a lot of research and become an expert on a bunch of different things, hoping the knowledge will help me become someone with living for. If in my life I cannot escape this misery, then it becomes hard to justify continuing. This is why I thought the Life Purpose course from Actualized.org would be important, but I kind of struggle with feeling my way to what I value. I don't know how I am supposed to be acceptable without changing. I don't want to be the person this pain has made me into, but I can't be otherwise. I don't know how to make it stop and become someone else who wasn't destroyed and turned into something I didn't want to be. I don't know what I need to change. I'm doing my best. At least it is logistically impossible to get a gun at this time. I just want to get away because I would somehow see myself as unacceptable if I actually killed them. Even so, I still feel unacceptable if the pain has made me into something I can't live with anyway. I want to try to find a life worth living and my attempt is through studying sociology and going to college in the hopes of changing social systems and therefore preventing harm to children in situations like mine. I don't believe that I will ultimately be happy even if successful, but at least I will be useful. Meanwhile, if I fail then I will go right back to contemplating suicide or murder again. My reason for living feels weak but it is there. I wish I had more than this uncertain future for justifying my continued existence. For now I will work with what I have. For now I will put off murder and suicide at least until I figure out how this all plays out. I would more likely just kill myself though because it is easier. It would be nice to trust someone other than AI. People on the internet aren't what I would hope for and I have been let down by many therapists already. Given the possibility of a better future, at least the mutual destruction idea doesn't apply to my present situation. It would need to get worse than this first. If there is hope left, then I will try the uncertain future over certain destruction, however that may play out. By addressing homicidal thoughts now, I hope to keep myself and others safer. I don't want to appear in a situation in which I might act on these thoughts. My fear of acting on these thoughts is the reason why I ended up turning myself into the hospital so I got put on anti-depressants instead. I don't want to be afraid of myself. Unfortunately, I am afraid of myself and it makes life extremely difficult. I am also afraid of others and it makes it difficult to get into relationships even though my therapists recommend dating because they think I'm lonely. This is why I ask about this subject in this thread to begin with. I am trying to get into dating and relationships from this position. Before I do though, I need to check for reasons why an intimate relationship might lead to a homicide such as in the scenarios I listed in the beginning. Cheating is one.

@Elliott I guess there are just no scenarios in which you would want to murder someone. Okay then. I never thought of this behavior as a bait-and-switch before. Can you help me understand what this means? According to Google is means the following. "A bait and switch is a deceptive and often illegal sales tactic where a business advertises an attractive, low-priced product or service (the "bait") with no real intent to sell it, and then pressures the customer into buying a different, typically more expensive or lower-quality alternative (the "switch") I would imagine that your argument is that in this case the product being sold is "murder" as if the cost were trivial while in real life it would never happen to you such that the actual cost of committing murder would be much higher. Therefore, you are asking for a realistic scenario in which murder would be acceptable. The thing is, if you have been a victim of organized crime and frame ups, you have a much broader imagination on this front than most. I don't know if you ever had someone try to frame you for kidnapping or not. You probably didn't. I don't know if you are aware of trafficking victims having claims of raped denied and being punished for prostitution instead. I don't know if you had a grandpa who was a police informant and a gangster who covered for your father while using his position to undermine other gangs. I don't know if you ever met a victim of identity theft which was my original example. My original example was the most realistic. The simpler question would be to your position that you would rather let someone harm you than you harm them. Why is it worse for you to harm someone else than to have them harm you? In some environments this would definitely be exploited if you don't act tough to intimidate others. If I were to run with any revenge for another murder scenario, then we could say Al-Qaeda forced you to watch as they beheaded your best friend. This would be simpler and would require no greater complexity. By this point your friend is dead and you cannot save him by killing the terrorist who did this. Given the consistent application of your position, you would not want to murder this person for revenge. If revenge does nothing for you, then you probably wouldn't care for murder in any scenario other than to protect others from harm. Therefore, killing before the harm to someone you cared for would be acceptable, but not after. In my case, I think if the consequences are be damned no matter then mutual destruction seems more palatable than merely accepting being hurt as the pain seems unacceptable from my point of view if my life would not be worth living anyway. If a person who caused me such harm is allowed to live a much better life than be by comparison and benefit from my suffering, then this would unfair. Fairness from this point of view becomes dragging them down to my level with no life being worthwhile for either of us. Mutual destruction is therefore justice from this point of view. You might need to tell me more about where you learned about deceptive tactics in arguing. I didn't know this one was a thing. If you have any others, then let me know.

@Leo Gura By this statement you could mean a lot of things, but here is how I interpret it. Life is like a Taco. You can have many things on a Taco and depending on your preferences a Taco could taste good or bad. Some people like hot sauce and others don't. Murder is like hot sauce in the Taco that is life. Depending on your preferences there are many ways in which murder would seem okay to someone. It is just different strokes for different folks. If your spouse cheats on you, maybe you want to kill the piece of shit. If you want some life insurance money and think you can get away with it, then murder isn't such a biggy, even it targeting your own child. If you get tipsy and start getting irritable easily, then maybe you would want to murder a guy at the bar for insulting you. If you are a Christian and believe in God, then maybe the church told that Muslims are demons and we should slaughter them. They could say that about other religions too. Religion often celebrated burning heretics at the stakes because it made them feel noble. That would be good hot sauce to them. If you are occupying another nation and are given the opportunity to terrorize civilians with impunity, then maybe you would have fun killing and raping people. If you have a lust for power and like making people suffer, then you might want to be a serial rapist who tortures dozens of people before murdering them because the power feels so good. If you hate society and think your country has betrayed you after fighting for it as a soldier, you might grow bitter toward your nation and decide to shoot up a school. If America betrayed you, then why not screw over America too as some Veterans go on to do. If you are a CEO of an oil company and environmentalists are protesting against your cancer causing pollution, then just send a private military to murder them in South America or Africa where this sort of thing would happen. There are no consequences for you if you bribe the government. If America ruined your country because of being an economic parasite, then maybe you want to send a message by blowing up the Twin Towers. The hijackers seemed to like hot sauce, but America did not. It is a matter of taste. If you think a class of an outgroup are subhuman, then maybe you would be fine with carrying out a genocide and you would feel like you are cleansing society and doing the world a favor. That all said, you said "Tacos with no hot-sauce." I believe what you mean is that although murder is not actually wrong, it doesn't sit with your taste buds very well. Maybe somebody else likes murder, but you don't. From that standpoint, I would think that you would want to avoid murdering someone if possible. In the scenario I considered a hard case, it would involve frame-ups such as through identity theft and a broken justice system such that the consequences are you will go to prison regardless. In that scenario revenge and mutually assured destruction is like a taste. If someone ruined my life by making me spend the rest of it in prison, then it isn't obvious to me why killing this person would be worse than letting them live. In such a scenario if I felt truly powerless, then revenge is the only thing that would make me feel like I have control at all. Power becomes appealing just like in the case of serial killers. This desire to feel in control is what seems to sit at the root of my desire for revenge and sometimes homicidal thoughts. You previously argued that nobody controls anything and that my sense of being in control is ultimately an illusion. My current position regarding free will is "I don't know." In any case I did not choose to be born to my horrible family, nor did I choose the genetics that caused me autism and makes people think I'm weird. Being born to a horrible family especially makes me feel like I don't have control to the point that sometimes all options seem bad. If I become directionless, alone, and lost in life it becomes depressing with anger and bitterness that feels difficult to resolve. Revenge fantasies such as those against family members who were cruel to me, which are the primary object of the revenge fantasies, are a means of telling myself that I am in control just like with my suicidal thoughts. If I can jump off of a bridge or shoot myself, then I can establish a sense of controlling my suffering by making it stop. Suicide therefore feels empowering rather than disempowering to someone with depression and an impossible family situation with a sense of being a victim and not being able to find peace in being who we are. Fundamentally people with depression therefore cannot love themselves because they feel like they could be different but have failed and therefore blame themselves. I try to love myself, but I seem to fail and end up hating myself anyway. In any case, murder or suicide is ultimately rooted in my desire for power and control. It looks like all of those other murder examples I sited can also trace back to a desire for control and power by eliminating someone unwanted who makes your life unpleasant. If control is ultimately an illusion, then the implication is that murder ultimately proves nothing in terms of power other than creating an illusion of having control which is still false and therefore empty in terms of its substance. The outcome therefore, is that revenge would not satisfy a person if they let go of the illusion of control and power entirely. I have a hard time doing this. I am not entirely sure how to let go of a desire for control and power, but if I did then I probably wouldn't have thoughts about suicide or murder to reestablish the illusion of control which ultimately fails anyway if questioned deeply enough. This line of questioning would probably be key to deconstructing such types of thought. Contemplating your statement seems to have led me here. Is this roughly what you meant by "Tacos with no hot-sauce?"

If you have a problem with imagining a shamelessly corrupt justice system, then let's take the justice system out of the equation. imagine there were no justice system. If we don't kill people because of the consequences, then what happens if you lived in a world in which there was no justice system at all? We can take the whole justice system out of the equation. Why not commit murder now?

Imagine the following scenario. Most of us would agree that you can kill someone to protect your family. A question the following scenario asks is why not kill someone after they killed your entire family? Why only before? Imagine that you were forced to watch as your child was tortured and eventually beheaded. Suppose the rest of your family was murdered by the person too. Now suppose that this person is a corrupt officer who accepts bribes and more than willing and able to frame you for the murder of your family. You will be put in prison forever if you don't kill the officer. If you do kill him, then you will be found guilty of murder and put in prison forever. Would you now be willing to commit murder? The consequences are horrible no matter what you do. Why wouldn't you murder this asshole? Why not take him out with you? The common pattern across these scenarios is that the justice system is broken. "Murder" is a legal definition or ruling just like "rape." You could legally murder someone in these types of scenarios. How exactly should murder be defined? Does seeking revenge actually make the action wrong from your point of view, or should we let this person go free and do whatever he wants while exploiting the broken justice system? This is also why I established the argument for "mutual destruction" in the logic of murder such that the consequences become irrelevant. The common argument against murder is that the consequences are bad. But what if the consequences are bad no matter what? Your life would be unlivable in any case. I sited frame ups like identity theft as another possible example.

@Majed Philosophers seem to have solved incest and I believe they have a fair position. Presently philosophers are more interested in discussing why necrophilia is wrong. It isn't actually obvious. I am not sure about necrophilia. The problem is that taboos are being taken as obvious when they are not obvious. Regarding incest there is a well known scenario that counters your assumptions. Imagine a boy and a girl were born as fraternal twins. They were separated at birth and never met each other. At the age of 25 they met and were attracted to each other. They dated and started a relationship indistinguishable from any other healthy relationship without knowing they were long lost siblings. They bond through having sex while using birth control and only later discover they were siblings separated at birth. If you think incest is wrong and taboo, then it isn't obvious why these two would be evil or bad people. The reality is that incest is not intrinsically bad, but rather it typically is accompanied by contingent harm. This is why rule consequentialism is the reason why incest would be outlawed. Most people react to incest as if it is like rape, but that isn't necessarily true. Instead it is a general moral heuristic treated as if the disgust is what makes it morally wrong despite the moral arguments being objectively terrible. The same applies to murder in this case. I seem to have triggered moral disgust. This is why people started throwing the Bible at me as if those are good arguments. They are not.