(untitled)

It got flagged as spam most likely by the word filters and I'm not planning to test this with every single word, so I've attached the .txt instead. Have a nice day

If it is so bad why do you not see a therapist about it? I know many can be awful but some people get lucky. Aside from that just know if you did anything against someone you feel wronged you does not make you better than them and it makes you a slave to them in that you would be sacrificing your livelihood for them. Instead of trying to harm others look for people to help others, just remember not to impose in ways they do not ask for. You also should practice both mindfulness meditation and metta aka loving kindness meditation to get better control over your thoughts and feelings as well as build ability to feel empathy for others even if they wronged you. If you understand people are the way they are because in part experiences they went through it potentially helps make any hatred toward them not as strong. I hope you find some peace of mind.

>>92997 >someone you feel wronged you Don't say "feel wronged". Op may have been truly wronged. (Depending on whether his father intended to hurt him, or satisfy himself.) Don't subjectivize wrongs into feel-wronged-s. If anything, the injustice of doing that can trigger people into retaliating even further. >>92970 >How can I get rid of these thoughts? Well, can anyone? Ever? Of anything? Outside of normal forgetting, the mind seems utterly additive to me. Maybe you don't ever get rid of pieces of yourself, you just grow things taller than them, or on top of them. You need to make wrappers for those thoughts. You already have, in being able to discuss them. Distractions, other reward loops, or something.

>>92997 Not to mention that people who recommend forgiveness, rarely if ever offer a solution to the problem that justice demans not forgiving by definition, other than the insubstantial "it is possible to seek justice and forgive at the same time". Yes but no. Those are truly definitionally, inherently contradictory. Insofar as you seek any action in reaction to something that happens to you, you are retaliating. One may try to deny that by insisting that seeking legal, criminal recourse is not "retaliation" as it is not vigilance. No, that's self-deception. One must always take a stance, always IS taking a stance. If I tell someone to forgive, to any degree at all, I inherently and inescapably tamper with their resignation-retribution control; I affect their future behavior. And the moral question arises of whether that tampering will do more good (whose?) than bad (whose?). If I tell a murderish person to forgive, will I render them more of a victim, making them suffer? If I tell them to seek justice, will I be responsible for collaterals getting caught? It is evasive, abstract, immaterial, and, one may argue, wrong, to say that "one must find a balance" or "it is possible to do both". If anything, because it does nothing. There is no "the" balance. It is a neutral statement by form. BUT, it may serve to handwave the actual consequences of any recommendations done beforehand.

>>92999 >>92997 And likewise with understanding. Yea, if we all just cultivated understanding and empathy for our wrongdoers, and immunized ourselves to their actions, then there would be no harm ever. Unavoidably. Logically. But between the present time and that potentiality, will cultivation of understanding -- or rather, attempts to do that -- cause less or more suffering? Again, "it's about a balance between forgiving when called for, and retaliating when called for" solves nothing, it just rehomes to the logically flawless form. One needs to make a messy shot, choose the amount of "let go" to try to maximize (whose?) utility.

Truth is, a 'normal' life as you imagine it won't ever happen. A time where all of these just wholly went away. The thoughts my become less frequent, but you can't deny that this was a large part of your life and formative years, that's set in stone. But what you choose to do with it, that's yours. If you get used to accepting, learning to be okay with these thoughts, and letting them go to choose what's right on your own terms, you may find that you can begin to walk into a more normal sphere. It won't be the staple of modern lifestyles, but you can be happy and enjoy your time on this planet, and in my opinion, with the soykaf you've been through, that's a pretty good deal.

>>92998 "Feel" doesn't invalidate experiences. The intent here is to cover the full range since it can range from actually wronged to misunderstanding events and motives. Not saying I am doubting OP but this is including future situations. >>92999 Unfortunately the legal system in most places is more focused on punishment through time instead of rehabilitation for a criminal or help heal a victim or change societal influences to prevent more events like it. This was not entirely on purpose it had been in part due to the Catholic concept of penance that a person given time will feel regretful and ask God for forgiveness. But obviously murdering someone or otherwise hospitalizing is not doing one's self a favor either. The legal system is only one way among many of how to handle people. It all depends on the circumstances. Yeah, many people think violent thoughts but don't do it because they do not obsess over it to a degree it consumes them. >>93000 You are creating a false dichotomy. Understanding is not the same as allowing yourself to be victimized. The point is you shouldn't turn into someone like the people you hate and there is other ways of dealing with things than murdering them like turning them into the police, suing them, letting people know what your experiences were with them so they know to be cautious or just simply avoiding them depending on the circumstances to name a few things.

>>93051 >The intent here is to cover the full range since it can range from actually wronged to misunderstanding events and motives. So they say. I've never seen it as anything but an attempt to disable the person / men, feminize them if you like. Rerouting their focus on themselves, so they are less likely to determine someone's guilt or innocence (determinism does not invalidate the concept of guilt), indeed less likely to think of guilt / responsibility in the first place. Whereas to do good, to prevent suffering, you MUST think in terms of guilt. Like I said, teaching immunity from misery to people is absolutely perfect, on paper. It's the old bait&switch, where you argue for a formally innocent thing, that nonetheless has harmful consequences, and then when faced with that, you inform me that those conquences are not what the thing "is about". So what? What something "is about" is literally the last thing anyone should think of. >The intent here is to cover the full range since it can range from actually wronged to misunderstanding events and motives. I'd much rather start from a proposition of someone's (or my own) guilt and be proven wrong. >Understanding is not the same as allowing yourself to be victimized. Yourself, or others. And, yea, "not the same". But on what level? This is absolutely essential. The abstraction level can take literally anything. "If you jump into a pit of crocodiles, you can get away, just avoid getting eaten." Does telling people "to understand a criminal's motivations is not the same thing as to excuse their behavior", decrease net future suffering or not? It always comes down to this simple question, that keeps getting unasked. You can cut through a lot of abstractions by it. Formal truth does not entail possession of physical truth value, much less of utility.

>>93051 >there is other ways of dealing with things than murdering them like turning them into the police, suing them, letting people know what your experiences were with them so they know to be cautious or just simply avoiding them Yea, those require an active, external mindset too. They get mentioned as a necessary evil, reluctantly, too. The idea is to sell emotional self-sufficiency, and handwave away inadequacy of self-sufficiency with "just get even MORE self-sufficiency to help you cope with insufficiency of self-sufficiency". It is a whole concept construction made of vacuum. Archetypally female.

Something not touched on yet. Even though someone can do awful things, these same people also sometimes do good which means if something happens to them not only the bad goes with them but the good too. Sure it isn't equal with everyone but sometimes people rely on the lives of more questionable people. Of course I am not suggesting they should roam freely able to harm people in serious ways just that someone will be hurt by them losing their life. Accepting someone did bad things is easier to accept when they are alive than when they are dead. Dead people can become martyrs and saints.

>>93065 >Even though someone can do awful things, these same people also sometimes do good Actually, this seems fairly in the air. CAN they? If we define awful and good intentionally, not consequentially, then ARE people mixed? Most people don't seem to be driven by, uh, other people. I know I am not, at all, at least. I do things because I want to. My goodness is carried by the evolutionary layer, not the personal layer. I do not set out "I want to make someone happy". I do things I want, which tend to be good / make people happy anyway. Because evolution's taken care that that be the case. But there IS a set, if small, of people driven by intentionality. That do things because they consciously figure they are good or bad. In those people, DO, short of traumatic injury, drives mix? Can someone go outside one day / decade thinking "let's harm someone", and the other, "let's help someone" (or v.v.)? Intrinsically, not as part of some machination to randomize one's behavior? I am not claiming either way, just throwing it out.

>>93067 (Of course, all people -- all things -- do things because "they want to". Intentionaliy of action is here defined as the length of an act's travel throughout the mind, the time that it spent in the "causal tumbler" of consciousness. All coin transactions have a path; it can be obscured all the same.)

>>92970 That's a pretty good chunk of text anon. Do you mind if I use it in a father-daughter eromanga I'm writing? It has a happy end. >How can I get rid of these thoughts? Have you tried fuarrrking your dad? I was going to end my story with that.

I'm at school and I just wanna be home

>>92997 >If it is so bad why do you not see a therapist about it? My experience with therapists was fairly negative, I once tried to kill myself and it spread around to absolutely every clinic of that company like wildfire. Every time I visit a new psychiatrist they make sure to highlight that moment before I even tell them about it, if something as big as this post was linked to my real life persona then it would completely ruin the shambles left of my reputation. I'm also not in the financial position to visit a therapist, my previous appointments were free due to some circumstances that I won't go into. >if you did anything against someone you feel wronged you does not make you better than them and it makes you a slave to them in that you would be sacrificing your livelihood for them. I'm not trying to "be better than them", that's cliché, I'm not a good person as it is and I don't care about being a better person than them, I'm likely much worse than the people back in school that I resent. >If you understand people are the way they are because in part experiences they went through it potentially helps make any hatred toward them not as strong. This does not excuse anything, my dad chose to have a child out of his own will, everybody knows that there are huge responsibilities to having a kid and that you can't fulfill them by being a fuarrrking deadbeat, yet he still chose to have a kid and treat him like soykaf hence he claims full responsibility for what he's done despite his upbringing. I sometimes resent my mom aswell for choosing to have a kid with him but that's another story. >>93030 I'm of the same thought here, going back to the serial killers that I once idolized, they have plenty of other problems that aren't just the need to kill, Luis Garavito (another serial killer with an abusive father) was pretty schizotypal, he often had mental breakdowns and he was a huge alcoholic, while Peter Sutcliffe (picrel) was a straight up paranoid schizophrenic. They're only known because they're serial killers and you could link that to their abusive fathers but it clearly does way more than provoke violent thoughts, it can completely ruin ones life before it even begins. >>93134 You can use it for whatever you want as long as you send a snippet of "my" part, it'd be funny to read. >Have you tried fuarrrking your dad? My dad is weirdly enough very homophobic so even if I was willing to, which I'm not, I wouldn't be able to.