Yes, because our system isn’t designed for justice. The police doesn’t try to find the truth, they just try to find someone to charge. The defender doesn’t try to find the truth, but to escape conviction for his client, likewise with the prosecutor. The judge is there to follow the letter of the law as well as possible, there is nobody that cares about justice.

The very idea that you need a prosecutor and a defender makes no sense if you think about it. At sociey that wanted justice would just have a bunch of independant experts colaborate to find the truth and sentence based on that.

The idea that the process of justice must be carried out like a competition in which both sides are trying to trip each other up and trying to win at any cost through manipulation and omission with no regards to truth or justice means that the system has no interest in either.

Eating isn’t gross and that’s not what the Ego is. Ego is the idea that you have of yourself as a concept in your mind, the image of yourself. From that comes the idea that rhis imaginary image can be enlarged or diminished by other fictional things. Like how you think if someone insults you you have to fight them back, or if you people like you, you’re more important. It’s a complete absurdity where people fight over mental images and go to wars over ideas that do not exist in reality.

The law is the will of the people so if they weren’t convicted they shouldn’t be. The law does not exist independently of humans, because it is an imaginary concept we made up.

So the law is just an excuse for us to punish the people we want to punish and not punish the people we don’t want to. All abstract concepts disappear when there are no more humans, so they are not things onto themselves.

I’m not sure you understand what the law is… The law is not a book of rules, it does not exist independently from its creators, it is the will of the people. If the people find someone not guilty, they’re not guilty. The law was invented by people and only exists to be an extension of the will of the people.

If ten people from a representative section of the population thinks someone is guilty or not guilty, that is the law. It doesn’t matter whether they did something or not, what they are deciding is whether they should be punished for it or not. That’s why there is a jury in the first place, otherwise you’d have a system based on accuracy, not on argument.

Mr. Strawman, is that you?

Finally some sports I want to watch

Truly

You know the funny part? It goes all the way. Let’s look at this dialogue from a Zen master from a 1000 years ago:

Q: What instructions have the Masters everywhere given for dhyana practice and the study of Dharma?

A: Words used to attract the dull of wit are not to be relied on.

Q: If those teachings were meant for the dull-witted, I have yet to hear what Dharma has been taught to those of really high capacity.

A: If they are really people of high capacity, where could they find people to follow? If they seek from within themselves, they will find nothing tangible; how much less can they find a Dharma worthy of their attention elsewhere! Do not look to what is called the Dharma by teachers, for what sort of Dharma could that be?

Q: If that is so, should we not seek for anything at all?

A: By conceding this, you would save yourself a lot of mental effort.

Coffees good

Simple as .

All good. What I’ve given you here is worth more than all the power and all the riches in the world, but it’s no more than a gift.

Enjoy! Or not.

Light roast with milk sounds like some kind of exquisite blasphemy

Hate to hear it buddy

Of course, at first it appears that our frustration comes from other people - but then some people get frustrated by one type of behaviour, while other people get frustrated by another type of behaviour - suddenly it becomes difficult to justify frustration as innately arising from certain behaviours, doesn’t it? It all ends up being completely arbitrary and therefore without any central truth.

You get frustrated because the behaviours you perceive (which are rarely even the behaviours actually displayed) trigger uncomfortable emotions in you, which you are not aware you can simply turn your attention inwards and allow and sit with, so you believe you must fight the external cause for your frustration for your system to settle down - a paradigm that leaves you feeling completely dependant on other people’s ability to adhere to whatever system of behaviours you believe to be the “proper one”, for your emotions to stay in control.

Your points are actually irrelevant at this point, because the discussion is no longer about your points, your points are now being used as a weapon to win a fight in which you believe something is at stake. It’s no longer just an interesting exchange of opinions.

So because you have exchanged clarity for frustration and blamed it on something external, the discussion is no longer about the discussion, so we’ll have to discuss the thing that’s in the way of the discussion first of all, so that you can recognize that your frustration is yours, give you the tools to sit with it and not need me to change for you to be calm, and only then can we return to yours and mine points in a friendly matter.

What a gift you’ve stumbled into really - a lifetime ahead of you where other people will never seem like the problem again, and you’ll have the power to always take responsibility and regulate your own mental state.

A crossroads! But do you take a moment to turn inwards and discover your inherent power? Or do you explode outwards again.

These opportunities come once or twice in a person’s lifetime. Wat will you do?

Oh no

Discussions are meant to be in the service of uncovering the truth, but you went and got angry and now perceive this discussion as a fight for your sense of self.

This doesn’t lead us anywhere, and regardless of who wins this perceived “fight” the truth will lose either way.

You take the time you need to settle back into clarity and then write a new reply, and we will doubtlessly get a fruitful conversation out of it.

And in the future don’t be so willing to give away your emotional clarity, it is your most precious possession.

You must resist the demon magic of the socks.

They do, and it’s been studied too. People with autism for example both score higher on a sense of justice and a willingness to go against peer-pressure to uphold it.

The famous Milgram experiment showed how neurotypicals were even willing to harm people as long as an authority told them to do so.

It’s not a perspective, it’s established science.

But you already knew this, right? If you are neurodivergent you can’t have failed to observe this, regardless of your desire to live in a positive delusion. Reality is not so easily tuned out.

We live in a world of constant strife and lack of empathy, and every answer you’ve given here has been full of unnecessary contentiousness and zero signs of empathy.

You yourself have proven your own argument to be wrong with your conduct, it was never necessary to bring in the rest of humanity or any studies.

Lost in your idealist platitudes about the goodness of mankind, you completely failed at empathy right here and now in a real human interaction, and when called out about it, you literally said: “Toughen up buddy”.

This whole thing reads like a comedy sketch.

You were the quintessential refutation of your own argument from your very first reply, and it only got worse from there.

Making me wanna Inshallah up

I mean they’re killing enough people on their own