Tenzhi

Cool. I've seen some good repurposing for various licensed characters over the years. It's neat to see the craft applied to original CoH characters. Good stuff.

I don't think I've ever had that happen. I generally only get defeated if there's more than one group or a Supervillain and I don't have a defensive passive.

I did have a Supervillain reset its hit points while I was standing just on the other side of an object from it to keep out of its attacks for a minute, though, and that was mildly frustrating.

And I gave up soloing one of the Blood Moon missions (Halloween event) because I couldn't do enough damage to overcome a Supervillain's self-healing. I had handled multiple groups of purple enemies and another Supervillain up to that point, though it took awhile and things got a bit rough once facing two Master Villains and six Henchmen.

Yeah, that's Marcelene's dad. He's like Satan viewed through a Lovecraftian lens who is king of Hieronymus Bosch's cartoon hell.

That's exactly what I would say. To me, mental illness is a flimsy excuse for heinous acts such as torture and murder.

The very definition of "rational" is "sensible", ergo "not rational" is "not sensible". They do, in fact, mean the same thing.

Nonsense can only make sense if you're capable of viewing it through the proper irrational lens.

On an aside, apparently rational people choose to purposefully injure themselves all the time and *that* makes just as little sense to me.

"Stupid" means 'lacking in common sense or intelligence' and "crazy" means 'mentally deranged'. Both definitions of which could fall under the umbrella of "irrational".

As for subjective judgments, psychological evaluations themselves tend to involve a professional but subjective interpretation of perforce subjective data.

Wherever I go, strangers walk up to me and share their pain as if I were some sort of bartender on walkabout that occasionally doubles as a hug dispensary. I might be a much happier person if I could remain completely disaffected by such things.

That, at least, is something we agree on. No one deserves to have that kind of thing happen.

That representation apparently being that I think she was responsible for her actions, as conscious choice would imply.

The other side of that being that you seem to claim that the actions are not made by choice due to mental illness and thus are beyond reproach.

I've been personally acquainted with individuals who "self injure". And who have taken harmful substances. And two people who have committed suicide. And regardless of their mental state, each of them consciously chose their activity (both activities in a couple of cases). My conclusion is essentially that the behaviour makes no sense. Your rebuttal is to basically agree with that as you continually point out that they're not rational decisions.

And both may be synonymous with "irrational" and the latter of the two goes hand in hand with mental illness.

The two statements carry the same basic meaning. I place more importance on the "she killed herself" part because to me it's the bigger issue. The other things can be moved past, but suicide is final and wasteful and I hate it. And I hate that the passing of this stranger makes me sad.

I wasn't implying that the victim is the problem, but rather questioning whether the stalker is responsible for their actions if they are irrational or suffering from a mental illness.

The only thing my experiences with emotionally/mentally traumatic events is having a bearing on is my own inability to sympathize with certain actions/reactions. And that doesn't make said actions/reactions necessarily right or wrong. They're just alien to me, and my own experiences are simply an explanation as to why. Similarly, I couldn't sympathize with someone killing theirself because they couldn't stand being surrounded by Euclidean geometry, or someone flapping their arms and shouting "wubble" every time they see the colour red.

It was clear to me from about first grade that it was pointless for me to try to fit in. I was shipped off to a gifted school once a week which set me apart from everyone at my regular school, and at the gifted school I was the poor kid who could only afford to be there once a week. I've been being simply myself without regard for fitting in or being "liked" for a a good long time.

I am rather stable, though I don't know that I could claim to be well-adjusted. I don't think I'm a psychopath, as I empathize with people who are in physical pain, or in emotional pain that makes sense to me. But I can't discount the possibility that I'm emotionally or mentally damaged in some manner.

She was presumably conscious when she chose to injure herself, alleged mental stability notwithstanding.

On the contrary, I believe I directly referred to the actions as somewhere in the range of stupid-to-crazy. Indeed, it is the fact that the actions make no sense to me that prevents me from sympathizing with them.

I took that into account. I believe the phrase I used was 'misplaced sentiment'.

Brevity can appear to be trivializing.

I find malicious, destructive, violent behaviour to be extraordinarily stupid. The bit about the mob disgusted and angered me the most.

I've wondered about that myself. I've pondered other possibilities as well, such as sociopathy and borderline autism.

Even if the stalker is not completely rational?

Monks, eh? I like me some monk fu. I'll have to look that up when I get a chance.

If you do not desperately need social acceptance, social rejection is not so traumatic an experience.

I won't quibble over the semantics, but I basically agree that however it is accomplished, they need to be able to cope better.

Whether I understand the concept of mental illness has little impact on my ability to sympathize. Sympathy requires a certain amount of relatability. Ergo, I sympathize with the situation, but not her actions/reactions in said situation - those are completely alien to me.

In her video she makes the statement that she chose not to press charges against any of the kids involved with the just-short-of-a-lynch mob. That is what I was referring to.

Unless people were doing all that because they *did* like her, you're just arguing semantics.

Yes, people can be horrible and cruel. I have personal experience with that. As I said, I sympathize with the situation. And I find the loss of life tragic and stupid.

I see what's happening in the world, and it generally reinforces my stoicism (which is not actually apathy). And I have never claimed to be perfect.

And your pity is noted, but can you make a case for self-mutilation and suicide being a sensible response to other people not liking you? Because it doesn't make sense to me. It's a ridiculous notion - crazy, even - and thus I cannot sympathize with it any more than I can sympathize with the act of shooting a bunch of random people because you don't get asked to join their reindeer games.

I cannot sympathize with getting worked up over threats to expose something embarrassing I voluntarily did in a fit of stupidity, or the subsequent exposure. It's the sort of thing I would shrug off.

And I cannot sympathize with taking up self mutilation because people say bad things about me.

And I also cannot sympathize with not taking appropriate legal action for clearly misplaced sentiment.

And probably a few other actions and reactions on her part.

Having been in similar situations to varying degrees, I can sympathize with the situation itself, but just not the actions and reactions to it.

Absolutely. As someone who was ostracized, made fun of, pushed around, and occasionally physically attacked throughout his school years I am 100% against bullying. But given human nature and our driving need to make everything into an Us vs. Them situation, I expect it will always occur to some degree despite our best efforts to curb the behaviour. That being the case, curbing the behaviours (such as craving the acceptance of others and seeking self-affirmation through them) that lead to suicide or lethal violence as a reaction is also a necessity.

I'm not debating the legality. I can simultaneously accept that the law may consider it to be stealing while still asserting that in actuality it is not.

Take away the motivation and make it objective: if two unconnected people paint the same scene and one manages to sell their painting and the other cannot, is it stealing?

What if the world ended in the mysterious and hypothetical future? Then it would all be immaterial anyway.

Or, how about this: If items were purchased at my garage sale, then that's "stealing" potential profits from retailers in much the same way as potential profits were being hypothetically stolen from me. A vicious cycle of thievery, indeed. Or a load of nonsense whichever way you look at it.

I dunno: On the one hand, bullying is something that shouldn't go on and can certainly be a "big deal", but on the other hand people *do* need to learn that not everyone will like them and they thus shouldn't base their self-worth on what other people think of them.

A common creed of vigilantes, I'd say.

The problem with the analogies is that there is actual loss going on, which wouldn't be the case here. If someone could manifest a usable copy of various and sundry objects in my "house" that I own without really impacting me, then I say more power to them. They're not stealing anything from me, in that case, because for something to be stolen an actual loss has to be incurred.

It looks to me like a game I might be able to finish within the free month that presumably comes with purchasing a retail copy if I focus on it. I doubt I would subscribe to it for 6 months, regardless. Not all entertainment can be expected to successfully endure for the long term.