Being concerned with certain occult readings, I'd like to skim off the top and boil down right to the heart and soul of right and wrong. Or in fact, the heart and soul's Right and Wrong.
Leaving behind the imprinted moral values in social and cultural 'good' and 'bad' of circuit four and supposing that the only 'right and wrong' you could ever now do is the deeds that originate from your 'essence' instead of 'personality', is there such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' essence?
If all anyone were to do was from the heart and not from the view of acceptable behaviour amongst "peers", "superiors" and "inferiors" (antiquated circuit 2 labels), what about those people 'deep down' you just know are 'bad' news? Can the words good or evil even be applied to such a paradigm, a place where such 1d and 2d scales (lines and graphs) are far too simplistic a description?
I see paradoxical truths in my mind. Does the phrase "All it takes for evil to succeed is for a good man to stand by and do nothing" really hold any water when we are calling the very words good and bad into question? Is baby raping really ok even though it can be understood and even justified? Say you had an urge to have sex with a child, but your social imprint was saying 'no!' but it was in your very essence, perhaps because you had a severely young mental age yourself or some other Freudian reason I'd not care to go into right now. And say you were an outsider in this situation, and the two parties in your witness were both acting on their essence but one was unwilling? Who do you stop, if you were to choose to interfere at all? If you are the sort of person who doesn't like watching other organisms be under sufferance and you decide to stop the 'paedophile', is that 'dislike' socio-imprint, essence or even DNA programming based on protecting the species, particularly children? Is there even a distinction between the latter two? And what about the 3rd circuit Rational response of working it out with OR and AND gates to calculate who profits most from which action disregarding, for now, emotional or moral decision making, a method that is as subjective as the emotional?
I understand my lack of enlightenment on the subject and I wish to improve the situation. I have an intuitive feel for the answers (which are all highly subjective it would seem to me) to all of these questions but it is difficult to tie down the ideas with language. This board I felt was the most likely place where some, if not most of you will have read or be reading the literature I've been referencing and could possibly share with me some of your own clarity on the subject.
Ok, let's say you see two pedophiles raping a child, from their very essences. You disagree with this. Why would it matter if this disagreement and the decision to interfere comes from your "essence" or a 3rd circuit or whatever? Sure, the 3rd circuit may be wrong sometimes, but so apparently can the "essence". I say you better hurry and interfere the living shit out of them, instead of worrying about ethics.
So the point is, where your moral judgement comes from, still doesn't tell you whether it's right or wrong. The 2nd circuit isn't any worse than the 3rd, or the "essence", and no reason to ignore its moral judgement.
The fact that you called them "antiquated circuit 2 labels" seems to suggest we might be better of without them? I think not. Besides, you can't get rid of them anyway.
3d3n, it seems to me that you're mixing up a lot of different ways of thinking.
You seem to reject the 8-circuit model (by talking about "essences") while at the same time using that very model to explain other behavior in your article.
That is to say, if you want to use the 8C model, you need to be consistent. The 8C model doesn't seem to have an underlying "essence" aspect; so you need to first define an "essence", and then how it reacts to social and educational conditioning without bringing in the 8C model.
Or, you need to develop a modified 8C model which supposes (and supports) the existence of some sort of genetic behavioral template which can be modified yet never overcome.
Otherwise, it makes your Original Post the equivalent of using mechanical engineering to describe nuclear fission.
I agree with LMNO... the 8 circuit model... is just a model/map. But its not as useful if you mix it together with other maps at the same time... better to use first one model then the other compare/contrast rather than trying to mush them together ;-)
Now, as to what you said, here are my thoughts I'll use the 8C model.
1. Let us assume, for the sake of this discussion that Leary's model is useful. And we'll simplify this model to a very basic level.
Humans act and react based on incoming data as modified by the experiences that they have had throughout life. We can model these experiences as affecting specific 'circuits': Biosurvival (how do you act when your life is in danger?), Territorial (How do you behave in a heirarchy?), Semantic (How do you tend to communicate?) and Social/Sexual (How do you behave around other people? What gets you off?)
The experiences had by each of us inform these circuits. Our parents beliefs, our own experiences... the bad thing that happened with Uncle Joe that one weekend, the first girl you kissed (or boy... or both). etc etc
While this may provide explanations about WHY a human may commit an act or behave in a particular fashion... it doesn't excuse their actions and behaviors.
Further, this is true for all of us, we all have programs, we all have circuits... we all have had experiences which inform our actions. Therefore, when we absorb some new information (Hey look that dude is gonna rape that three year old!) the data is processed by our circuits. If your experiences have programmed you to say "That's wrong, its dangerous for the child, its abusive, the child isn't willing, etc etc etc" then there's nothing wrong with you reacting as programmed. There's a huge difference between blindly following a dogmatic program and determining that a situation is wrong and needs to be dealt with. In this case, perhaps a dogmatic program would say "That adult man spends a lot of time with kids... HE IS PEDO!!!!" an obvious difference from the example above.
In the case of pedophilia, I think there's an easy answer. An adult man that attempts intercourse with a child can cause serious and lasting physical harm, to the point that the child may never be able to conceive. Therefore, since the child has no real choice in the matter, nor are they old enough to understand or make the choice... the act should be stopped. The lasting psychological harm caused by pedophilia or date rape or being a victim of a child predator etc. also make these actions ones that should be stopped... because the child is being abused.
On the other hand, if your program says "Man fucking man = WRONG" and you bother to think through it... you would determine that the men involved are adults, consenting and any 'harm' done is understood and accepted by both parties. In that case, there's no rationale to involve yourself.
The 8C model is interested in discussing WHY people behave like they do. Its not particularly useful for discussing the ethics of what the people are doing ;-)
Nicely said, Rat. That blurb about 1-4 is one of the more concise ones I've seen recently.
I'd also like to formally state that an explanation is not a justification. You can say that a pedo is "programmed" that way because of how his circuits would up being imprinted. But that doesn't mean they are excused. As I understand it, 8C is an ongoing process, with conditioning and education layering on top of the supposed "imprint". A pedo may want to fuck children, but they also (under the majority of circumstances) know that it is considered "wrong". I don't think the past can be used as a valid excuse for the actions in the present.
I wonder though....more related to what Ratatosk was saying than 3d3n, about the 8 circuit theory. I'm sure it was meant to be mostly descriptive and I would tend to think of it in that way...but maybe its just the way RAW lays it out in Prometheus rising, in many respects it does seem to be partially normative as well. His descriptions of circuits two and three are pretty negative, especially in comparison to 6, 7 and 8.
I don't think its on purpose, but reading it in context, and especially with the linear hierarchy used to describe the theory, you could be forgiven for seeing it as having some sort of normative value as well.
Quote from: LMNO on January 21, 2009, 07:39:54 PM
Nicely said, Rat. That blurb about 1-4 is one of the more concise ones I've seen recently.
I'd also like to formally state that an explanation is not a justification. You can say that a pedo is "programmed" that way because of how his circuits would up being imprinted. But that doesn't mean they are excused. As I understand it, 8C is an ongoing process, with conditioning and education layering on top of the supposed "imprint". A pedo may want to fuck children, but they also (under the majority of circumstances) know that it is considered "wrong". I don't think the past can be used as a valid excuse for the actions in the present.
Precisely! The reason Leary designed the system was to TREAT individuals that had 'bad programming'. The entire concept was that humans could 'reprogram' the bad imprints (meta-programming). if someone had experiences in life that led them to pedophilia (perhaps like the poor sod of a protagonist in 'Lolita', Humbert Humbert. He had experiences as a child (leary would say imprints to his socio-sexual circuit) which led to him tying beauty and lust to nymphettes. In his case, his first childhood love died of typhus, before they could actually have sex leading to an obsession with girls of that age. We may understand why he behaves as he does, we may have empathy for the poor fool (if you ever read the book its almost impossible not to feel sorry for him). BUT... this is precisely the sort of thing that Leary would have wanted to treat, to fix... not to justify or accept.
The 8 circuit model was designed to assess such a person, figure out where the 'programming flaw' was and try to fix it. For the most part Leary's work focused on criminals, not pedos... but the principles apply, I think.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2009, 07:46:46 PM
I wonder though....more related to what Ratatosk was saying than 3d3n, about the 8 circuit theory. I'm sure it was meant to be mostly descriptive and I would tend to think of it in that way...but maybe its just the way RAW lays it out in Prometheus rising, in many respects it does seem to be partially normative as well. His descriptions of circuits two and three are pretty negative, especially in comparison to 6, 7 and 8.
I don't think its on purpose, but reading it in context, and especially with the linear hierarchy used to describe the theory, you could be forgiven for seeing it as having some sort of normative value as well.
Prometheus Rising lays it out linearly, for a couple reasons... its easy to grok for a layman and it is the theoretical linear path in which these circuits evolved through history (Earliest critters had basic bio-survival and nothing else, as time went on they began to be territorial and hierarchical etc.) Leary designed the system to analyze patients... Bob stole the system to provide a complex model which described the brain in a way that was useful for delivering his ideas.
Also he was far more interested in the higher circuits, because his transhumanist tenancies really felt that those circuits would take humans to the next stage... if humans can fix their own brains, their own flaws... it would be astounding and surely change the way we exist. That, more than anything was his optimistic vision... I think.
Quote from: 3D3N on January 21, 2009, 12:51:53 AM
Being concerned with certain occult readings, I'd like to skim off the top and boil down right to the heart and soul of right and wrong. Or in fact, the heart and soul's Right and Wrong.
Leaving behind the imprinted moral values in social and cultural 'good' and 'bad' of circuit four and supposing that the only 'right and wrong' you could ever now do is the deeds that originate from your 'essence' instead of 'personality', is there such a thing as a 'good' or 'bad' essence?
If all anyone were to do was from the heart and not from the view of acceptable behaviour amongst "peers", "superiors" and "inferiors" (antiquated circuit 2 labels), what about those people 'deep down' you just know are 'bad' news? Can the words good or evil even be applied to such a paradigm, a place where such 1d and 2d scales (lines and graphs) are far too simplistic a description?
I see paradoxical truths in my mind. Does the phrase "All it takes for evil to succeed is for a good man to stand by and do nothing" really hold any water when we are calling the very words good and bad into question? Is baby raping really ok even though it can be understood and even justified? Say you had an urge to have sex with a child, but your social imprint was saying 'no!' but it was in your very essence, perhaps because you had a severely young mental age yourself or some other Freudian reason I'd not care to go into right now. And say you were an outsider in this situation, and the two parties in your witness were both acting on their essence but one was unwilling? Who do you stop, if you were to choose to interfere at all? If you are the sort of person who doesn't like watching other organisms be under sufferance and you decide to stop the 'paedophile', is that 'dislike' socio-imprint, essence or even DNA programming based on protecting the species, particularly children? Is there even a distinction between the latter two? And what about the 3rd circuit Rational response of working it out with OR and AND gates to calculate who profits most from which action disregarding, for now, emotional or moral decision making, a method that is as subjective as the emotional?
I understand my lack of enlightenment on the subject and I wish to improve the situation. I have an intuitive feel for the answers (which are all highly subjective it would seem to me) to all of these questions but it is difficult to tie down the ideas with language. This board I felt was the most likely place where some, if not most of you will have read or be reading the literature I've been referencing and could possibly share with me some of your own clarity on the subject.
When i ponder questions such as right or wrong, it often leads me to hypotheticals regarding who i would or wouldnt kill in a given circumstance in regard to accomplishing a certain goal. With the 8c model in mind (social circuit), in such a scenario where i choose to kill or not someone, what would be the consequences aside from those pertaining to my goal? Would the party in judgement of my actions evaluate the goal oriented consequences or the all encompassing consequences of a particular killing scenario?
Death seems to have always been near the top of ethical considerations and matters related to soul, or essence. What are your thoughts?
Thank you guys, it's very nice to hear other people talking and giving opinions on this stuff. Yeah, I was mixing up maps a little, some Fourth Way stuff has permeated into my thinking hence the references to 'essence'. And the whole 'understanding & excusing' thing was a vague notion I picked up from Nietszche, although I haven't read that much so I ought to really go back and look over that again perhaps.
Heh, I think I should have put more quotes around more of those words... I'm not really sure which sort of map to ascribe to so none of these views are really my own yet, I can see many that I find as 'truthful' but yet are seemingly 'opposite' ways of thinking that appear to conflict, so I'm having trouble where to draw the lines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2009, 07:59:13 PM
Also he was far more interested in the higher circuits, because his transhumanist tenancies really felt that those circuits would take humans to the next stage... if humans can fix their own brains, their own flaws... it would be astounding and surely change the way we exist. That, more than anything was his optimistic vision... I think.
I picked up on that whilst reading PR, and I have to say I was very interested in this concept, and I've had experiences that could support some of the hallmarks of these 'higher circuits' to me anyway.
I'm not really sure how to relate the question on death to the 8-model because my knowledge is shaky at best. I'll go away and research and perhaps I'll come up with a much different answer after I have, and I always like it when that happens ^.^ Here is my offering as it stands however.
A near-death experience (or at least, I believed VERY FIRMLY that I was dead in a very delicate state of mind) vastly changed the way I looked at things like that. In the flast of the last remaining second I thought I had, I
understood that this meant I could never go back, that this was what it was like to know that it was the end of all that you previously knew and it was the end of your influence and no further contact would be had with any of the people you loved, and I understood
exactly how selfish a thing like suicide really is when you can even think of just one person who would miss you (although I think the Catholic dismissing it as a cardinal Sin is a rather harsh and extreme view). I will never forget what it was like to utterly believe and know that point just before the end. And then, I went to Living Hell, ('Living' with hindsight) a perfect one just for me designed by yours truly, quite a bad experience of my life past-present-future (a spinoff for a different conversation). It has been a view of mine that if we are living in our own separate 'universes' and 'God' is our own mind, it is up to you to judge yourself, because nobody else can put you in a worse place than yourself in your lifetime. I can't speak for actual death-hell/heaven/nothingness/moose/whatever, I never really went there properly, although I hope by this experience I can at least see what it MIGHT be like for
me.
After considering the experience for a while, I like to overlay it when confronted with death or the intent to inflict it. Death is inevitable (sorry RAW, I can't buy immortality just yet), and to be quite honest I find it quite hard to take it too seriously, even when it occurs to a family member or a friend or other species. I can't speak from the capacity of somebody who has taken a life (although in the past I sometimes wish I could ¬_¬) but I can speak as an outside to such events. Although it is a little saddening in that they are no longer able to interact with us in spacetime, I like to buy into a seemingly japanese ideal of it's the memory that's important. I can't stand sentiments of "they took them away from ME!" because the person never 'belonged' to you, me or anybody else in the first place. The people that kill are also human like you and me only they followed through.
I think rather than just THOU SHALT NOT punishment, it should be offered to people that they understand the extent of their action, and preferably before they even do it. Although I think I'm dreaming of an ideal society that actually teaches children about life (and death, harr de harr) and not just how to pass exams and play society games, so I'm not sure of the practicality of such a suggestion in this day and age of even if it is a practical suggestion. I think at the moment people do such acts out of sheer ignorance, "patristic inability to feel other people", or seemingly uncontrollable chemical urge (although I am leaving out people with severe mental problems, I wouldn't even know how to begin to address such matters. They require help beyond my current imaginings and knowledge).
Maybe we should all be naked, go live in caves on the moon, abolish currency and private property AND learn kung fu? ;)
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2009, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2009, 07:46:46 PM
I wonder though....more related to what Ratatosk was saying than 3d3n, about the 8 circuit theory. I'm sure it was meant to be mostly descriptive and I would tend to think of it in that way...but maybe its just the way RAW lays it out in Prometheus rising, in many respects it does seem to be partially normative as well. His descriptions of circuits two and three are pretty negative, especially in comparison to 6, 7 and 8.
I don't think its on purpose, but reading it in context, and especially with the linear hierarchy used to describe the theory, you could be forgiven for seeing it as having some sort of normative value as well.
Prometheus Rising lays it out linearly, for a couple reasons... its easy to grok for a layman and it is the theoretical linear path in which these circuits evolved through history (Earliest critters had basic bio-survival and nothing else, as time went on they began to be territorial and hierarchical etc.) Leary designed the system to analyze patients... Bob stole the system to provide a complex model which described the brain in a way that was useful for delivering his ideas.
Also he was far more interested in the higher circuits, because his transhumanist tenancies really felt that those circuits would take humans to the next stage... if humans can fix their own brains, their own flaws... it would be astounding and surely change the way we exist. That, more than anything was his optimistic vision... I think.
Well yes.
I'm just pointing out that even if that wasnt his intent, it can still easily be
read that way. Which is not helpful.
I hope you guys don't mind but I'm blogging this thread for personal reference. Also any future responses.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2009, 11:13:35 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2009, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2009, 07:46:46 PM
I wonder though....more related to what Ratatosk was saying than 3d3n, about the 8 circuit theory. I'm sure it was meant to be mostly descriptive and I would tend to think of it in that way...but maybe its just the way RAW lays it out in Prometheus rising, in many respects it does seem to be partially normative as well. His descriptions of circuits two and three are pretty negative, especially in comparison to 6, 7 and 8.
I don't think its on purpose, but reading it in context, and especially with the linear hierarchy used to describe the theory, you could be forgiven for seeing it as having some sort of normative value as well.
Prometheus Rising lays it out linearly, for a couple reasons... its easy to grok for a layman and it is the theoretical linear path in which these circuits evolved through history (Earliest critters had basic bio-survival and nothing else, as time went on they began to be territorial and hierarchical etc.) Leary designed the system to analyze patients... Bob stole the system to provide a complex model which described the brain in a way that was useful for delivering his ideas.
Also he was far more interested in the higher circuits, because his transhumanist tenancies really felt that those circuits would take humans to the next stage... if humans can fix their own brains, their own flaws... it would be astounding and surely change the way we exist. That, more than anything was his optimistic vision... I think.
Well yes.
I'm just pointing out that even if that wasnt his intent, it can still easily be read that way. Which is not helpful.
Yeah.
One of the more useful things I got from PD.com is the realization that I needed to go back and read RAW with the same settings on my bullshit detector as when I read my brother's Scientology books.
im doing that, sort of, and some pieces are still pretty good. but indeed, some also do make the ol' bullshit sensor go insane.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2009, 11:13:35 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 21, 2009, 07:59:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2009, 07:46:46 PM
I wonder though....more related to what Ratatosk was saying than 3d3n, about the 8 circuit theory. I'm sure it was meant to be mostly descriptive and I would tend to think of it in that way...but maybe its just the way RAW lays it out in Prometheus rising, in many respects it does seem to be partially normative as well. His descriptions of circuits two and three are pretty negative, especially in comparison to 6, 7 and 8.
I don't think its on purpose, but reading it in context, and especially with the linear hierarchy used to describe the theory, you could be forgiven for seeing it as having some sort of normative value as well.
Prometheus Rising lays it out linearly, for a couple reasons... its easy to grok for a layman and it is the theoretical linear path in which these circuits evolved through history (Earliest critters had basic bio-survival and nothing else, as time went on they began to be territorial and hierarchical etc.) Leary designed the system to analyze patients... Bob stole the system to provide a complex model which described the brain in a way that was useful for delivering his ideas.
Also he was far more interested in the higher circuits, because his transhumanist tenancies really felt that those circuits would take humans to the next stage... if humans can fix their own brains, their own flaws... it would be astounding and surely change the way we exist. That, more than anything was his optimistic vision... I think.
Well yes.
I'm just pointing out that even if that wasnt his intent, it can still easily be read that way. Which is not helpful.
Yeah.
One of the more useful things I got from PD.com is the realization that I needed to go back and read RAW with the same settings on my bullshit detector as when I read my brother's Scientology books.
Well good.... cause that's how Bob expected you to read them! ;-)
What can I say?
Sometimes it's hard to pop a cap in Buddha's ass.
Quote from: LMNO on January 22, 2009, 04:10:03 PM
What can I say?
Sometimes it's hard to pop a cap in Buddha's ass.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Well, I think that it became easier the more I reread his stuff... The first time I was convinced he was laying down truth and fact and just trying to hide it with maybes... Anymore, I think he was trying to talk about ideas and used CRAZY metaphors/models to explain the idea so people wouldn't believe the map. But then again, I also sometimes think he was a smart guy that knew what a particular niche market wanted to read.
i always enjoyed the crazy maps and the references inside of references inside of references that he used in his writing. i thought he did it in an attempt to make the reader aware of the map and force them to read his stuff from a meta perspective..
Quote from: Fomenter on January 22, 2009, 04:34:22 PM
i always enjoyed the crazy maps and the references inside of references inside of references that he used in his writing. i thought he did it in an attempt to make the reader aware of the map and force them to read his stuff from a meta perspective..
I agree... sometimes ;-)
Sometimes, I'm pretty sure he was fucking with the reader.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2009, 04:45:32 PM
Quote from: Fomenter on January 22, 2009, 04:34:22 PM
i always enjoyed the crazy maps and the references inside of references inside of references that he used in his writing. i thought he did it in an attempt to make the reader aware of the map and force them to read his stuff from a meta perspective..
I agree... sometimes ;-)
Sometimes, I'm pretty sure he was fucking with the reader.
without a doubt
meta perspective and "bullshit detector on" have a few similarities..
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2009, 04:20:02 PM
But then again, I also sometimes think he was a smart guy that knew what a particular niche market wanted to read.
Dolaras LaPicho has argued this point in particular before. She believes what RAW (and several others, such as Hyatt etc) promoted was a "small businessman magus" persona. In part, what they did essentially ended up being moderately successful authors and speakers with a devoted fanbase. And perhaps their work will only get you that far as well.
But that is an argument for another time.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2009, 04:52:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2009, 04:20:02 PM
But then again, I also sometimes think he was a smart guy that knew what a particular niche market wanted to read.
Dolaras LaPicho has argued this point in particular before. She believes what RAW (and several others, such as Hyatt etc) promoted was a "small businessman magus" persona. In part, what they did essentially ended up being moderately successful authors and speakers with a devoted fanbase. And perhaps their work will only get you that far as well.
But that is an argument for another time.
I recall an interview where someone asked RAW what he was focused on now... obviously expecting some comment about immortality, UFO's, the Illuminati etc... and instead Bob went off about how he was focused on making some money from a couple new books and his lecture tour.
I was like this: :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2009, 04:52:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 22, 2009, 04:20:02 PM
But then again, I also sometimes think he was a smart guy that knew what a particular niche market wanted to read.
Dolaras LaPicho has argued this point in particular before. She believes what RAW (and several others, such as Hyatt etc) promoted was a "small businessman magus" persona. In part, what they did essentially ended up being moderately successful authors and speakers with a devoted fanbase. And perhaps their work will only get you that far as well.
But that is an argument for another time.
I kinda felt that way when reading
The Psychopath's Bible. It's like Hyatt wasn't even trying anymore.
Quote from: 3D3N on January 22, 2009, 01:13:41 PM
personal reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Bound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Rising
kinda fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfI60NZd1kY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ZwFREy-xg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxo1b5HWbAE
Oh, that might be a fun Wiki article to flesh out....
:lulz:
Quote from: 3D3N on January 21, 2009, 12:51:53 AM
Being concerned with certain occult readings, I'd like to skim off the top and boil down right to the heart and soul of right and wrong. Or in fact, the heart and soul's Right and Wrong.
IF IT HAS TO BE HIDDEN FROM YOUR OWN PEERS, IT'S FUCKING WRONG.
THAT'S ALL YE KNOW, AND ALL YE NEED KNOW.
THE REST OF THAT SHIT YOU POSTED IS ANGSTY BULLSHIT, AND IS ALSO WRONG. YOU SHOULD BE FED INTO A CHIPPER FOR WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.
There. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go tell the Dalia Lama to fuck off.
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on January 22, 2009, 07:10:32 AM
When i ponder questions such as right or wrong, it often leads me to hypotheticals regarding who i would or wouldnt kill in a given circumstance in regard to accomplishing a certain goal.
AKIDA KIM? IS THAT YUO?