Shodburrito

@Leo Gura Your seven-word dismissal perfectly demonstrates everything I've been saying about this forum. Instead of engaging with any of my philosophical points or addressing substantive critiques, you've offered a textbook thought-terminating cliché that: Positions you as the dispenser of "wisdom" that I was "given" (reinforcing your place at the top of the hierarchy) Frames my philosophical challenges as mere "stubbornness" rather than legitimate inquiry Places the blame entirely on me for not "appreciating" what was offered Completely avoids addressing any actual points I raised The irony is that your response validates my entire critique. You had an opportunity to prove me wrong by engaging thoughtfully with the ideas presented. Instead, you've provided a perfect exhibit for the case I've been making. Your dismissive seven words speak volumes about the intellectual environment you've created, and it’s honestly embarrassing and just so lazy

After months of participation, I've conducted an experiment on this forum that has exposed what many of these "spiritual" communities truly are: intellectual wastelands masquerading as enlightenment. I'm sharing my findings before I leave this cesspool of ego masquerading as transcendence. The Experiment For the past month, I've intentionally posted two very different types of content: Substantive philosophical challenges questioning fundamental assumptions about consciousness, reality, objective truth, the nature of suffering, the relativity of all frameworks, the relationship between identity and beliefs, the social construction of spiritual hierarchies, and novel theoretical frameworks for understanding human existence Complete bullshit spiritual word-salad - deliberately empty, meaningless jargon strung together to sound profound while saying absolutely nothing The results were both predictable and disappointing. The Results My substantive philosophical posts were met with: Immediate hostile dismissal without any engagement with the actual ideas Patronizing responses suggesting I'm "not developed enough" to understand Emotional tantrums masquerading as spiritual wisdom Ad hominem attacks focusing on how I created the content rather than its substance Zero willingness to consider new perspectives that might threaten established beliefs Meanwhile, the meaningless garbage I wrote like: "The heart-space of your being is simply recalibrating to a higher octave of truth that transcends the linear understandings of conventional awakening processes. This feeling of disconnection is actually a profound connection to the mystery that lives beneath all surface experiences, inviting you into a more surrendered relationship with the unfolding tapestry of divine intelligence that orchestrates all apparent separations into ultimate harmony." Was enthusiastically received with: Gushing praise for my "profound wisdom" and "deep insights" Comments about how "beautiful" and "transformative" these empty words were People thanking me for "articulating what they've been feeling" Requests for more of this hollow nonsense Not a single person asking what any of it actually meant I even created completely fabricated personal stories (like claiming I kicked my neighbor's dog and faced charges) that any halfway intelligent person should have questioned - yet most were swallowed whole without skepticism. What This Reveals This experiment exposes several damning truths about this community: It's an intellectual dead zone - Despite all the talk about "expanding consciousness," this forum is violently allergic to actual novel ideas or perspectives that challenge the status quo Style over substance is the rule - Shallow spiritual-sounding language is valued over meaningful content, creating an echo chamber of empty platitudes Critical thinking is seen as a spiritual defect - Questions that challenge dominant beliefs are treated as evidence of being "unawakened" rather than signs of intellectual engagement It's a marketplace of spiritual narcissism - The real currency here is establishing your position in the spiritual hierarchy and defending it at all costs Genuine philosophical inquiry is unwelcome - A space supposedly dedicated to "truth" demonstrates zero interest in exploring new philosophical terrain Objective truth claims mask subjective preferences - Claims about reality, consciousness, and development are presented as objective facts when they're merely created frameworks Suffering is fetishized as the only path - Anyone suggesting alternate paths to insight is attacked, because if suffering isn't necessary, what was all that pain for? The Grand Irony The crowning irony of this forum is the gap between what it claims to be and what it actually is: People who claim to have "transcended ego" displaying the most fragile egos I've ever witnessed Self-proclaimed "awakened beings" showing the emotional maturity of toddlers when their beliefs are questioned Those who preach "openness to all perspectives" immediately shutting down any perspective that challenges them Individuals who talk about "going beyond the mind" being completely trapped in rigid thought patterns A community supposedly pursuing "truth" that is pathologically unable to question its own assumptions What's most revealing is how a space dedicated to "consciousness expansion" has created a perfect closed system where questioning the system itself is seen as evidence you need the system. This circular logic makes genuine growth impossible. A Note About My Process For those fixated on how I created my posts rather than their content: yes, I sometimes use AI to help edit and clarify the structure of my posts. The original insights, arguments, and philosophical frameworks are my own – I simply used AI as an editing tool to help articulate them more clearly. This obsession with the method rather than the message is telling. When you can't engage with the actual philosophical content, attack the medium instead. It's the intellectual equivalent of criticizing someone's handwriting when you can't refute their argument. The irony is that if I had posted incoherent, poorly structured nonsense that happened to validate your existing beliefs, no one would care how it was created. But present clear, well-articulated challenges to the dominant narrative, and suddenly the method becomes a convenient excuse to dismiss the content. The Truth About This Community Let's be brutally honest: this isn't a forum for philosophical exploration or genuine awakening. It's a circle-jerk of spiritual narcissists validating each other's delusions while maintaining a rigid hierarchy of who's "more awakened" than whom. The emotional tantrums thrown when I presented novel philosophical frameworks revealed how much these supposed "spiritual masters" have invested in their identities. True awakening would welcome challenges to one's framework - not respond with the intellectual equivalent of covering your ears and screaming. Most disappointing is watching people who claim to have reached elevated states of consciousness demonstrate less intellectual curiosity and openness than the average philosophy undergraduate. At least philosophers expect to have their ideas challenged - here, challenge is treated as heresy. In Conclusion I came to this forum hoping to find minds genuinely interested in exploring consciousness, reality, and human existence. I hoped to encounter people willing to question assumptions, consider novel perspectives, and engage in actual philosophical discourse about the nature of being. Instead, I found a swamp of spiritual posturing where form trumps content, where challenging ideas are met with defensive hostility, and where the appearance of wisdom is valued over actual insight. To those pathetic few who attacked me for using AI to help articulate my thoughts - congratulations on finding the least relevant aspect of philosophical discourse to focus on. Your obsession with the medium rather than the message reveals your intellectual bankruptcy. To the self-proclaimed "awakened masters" who couldn't engage with philosophical challenges without emotional meltdowns - perhaps consider that true mastery would include the ability to engage with ideas that threaten your identity. To Leo and others selling their particular flavor of "truth" as the only valid path - your requirement that others suffer as you did reveals more about your psychological needs than any objective reality. To everyone else - I genuinely hope you'll someday recognize that uncritically swallowing spiritual-sounding gibberish while rejecting novel philosophical frameworks isn't a path to awakening - it's intellectual death dressed in spiritual clothing. I'm moving on to spaces where ideas are engaged with based on their merit rather than how well they conform to existing beliefs, where philosophical inquiry is welcomed rather than attacked, and where people are more interested in exploring new territory than defending their territory. Feel free to dismiss this as me being "not developed enough" - that would only provide one final data point confirming everything this experiment has already demonstrated about the bankruptcy of this community. I fully anticipate this post will be banned because people can't handle what I'm saying. If it is deleted, or locked, it will only prove my point entirely about the intellectual bankruptcy and ego-protection happening in this "spiritual" community. Addendum Let's be brutally honest about what this community really is: a masturbatory echo chamber of spiritual narcissists too insecure to engage with challenging ideas. You claim enlightenment while displaying the intellectual capacity of goldfish and the emotional maturity of toddlers. Your 'awakened' status is nothing but a transparent shield for fragile egos seeking validation. The truly pathetic part? You'll prove me right with your responses to this post - emotional tantrums dressed up as 'spiritual wisdom,' patronizing comments about my 'level of development,' or dismissive platitudes about how I 'just don't get it.' Not a single one of you will engage with the actual philosophical content because you can't. You're intellectually incapable of it. Your entire spiritual identity would crumble if you admitted that your emperor has no clothes. The defensive, emotionally-charged responses this paragraph will generate are exactly the evidence I need to confirm everything I've said about this spiritual playground of arrested development masquerading as enlightenment. A Special Message for Leo And finally, @Leo Gura - the architect of this entire charade. You built this echo chamber while claiming to stand against exactly what you've created. The irony would be beautiful if it weren't so pathetic. You constantly warn against spiritual narcissism, ideological thinking, and guru worship while systematically cultivating all three. You've created a personality cult where challenging your frameworks is heresy, where your suffering is more profound than anyone else's, and where your "awakening" is somehow deeper than anyone else could possibly comprehend. Tell me, Leo - if you're truly beyond ego, why the constant need to remind everyone how awakened you are? Why the incessant posturing about your spiritual achievements? Why the endless self-aggrandizing stories about the depths of your suffering and the heights of your realizations? A truly awakened being wouldn't need to constantly tell others how awakened they are. You criticize spiritual narcissists while staring at your own reflection in every video, masturbating to the image of your own enlightenment. You warn against ideological thinking while creating an ideological framework where your perspective is positioned as the ultimate truth. You mock guru worship while carefully cultivating a community that treats your word as gospel. Here's a question you've likely never asked yourself because your spiritual ego couldn't survive the answer: If your awakening is genuine, why does it require so much external validation? Why the need for an audience to witness your enlightenment? Could it be that without others to reflect back your specialness, the whole edifice might collapse? The truly devastating possibility you'll never confront is this: perhaps all your suffering, all your meditation, all your psychedelic journeys were not the necessary path to truth, but simply the path you needed to convince yourself of your own importance. Perhaps what you call "awakening" is actually an elaborate construction designed to position yourself at the top of a hierarchy you claim to have transcended. You're not a beacon of truth - you're a lighthouse keeper trying to convince the ships that you are the ocean. And the saddest part is, you'll never be honest enough with yourself to even consider this possibility.

@Letho It's fascinating how you've managed to write an entire response without addressing a single philosophical point from my post. Instead of engaging with the ideas, you've chosen to focus on how you think the post was created. This is the intellectual equivalent of critiquing someone's handwriting instead of their argument. Yes, I sometimes use AI to help articulate and refine my thoughts - much like writers have used editors, philosophers have used dialogues, and thinkers throughout history have used whatever tools were available to them to clarify their ideas. The medium doesn't invalidate the message. If you find yourself unable to engage with the content and must instead attack the method, that reveals more about your position than mine. What's particularly interesting is the emotional intensity of your response. Your language is charged with frustration and condemnation - calling my post "the implicit downfall of society" and "spreading misinformation." I have to wonder: why does challenging the necessity of suffering trigger such a strong emotional reaction in you? When someone responds with this level of defensiveness to a philosophical position, it often indicates the position has touched on something personally threatening. The idea that growth might not require the specific kind of suffering you've invested in seems to have struck a nerve. This is precisely the identity protection mechanism I described in my original post. Your concern about effort is particularly interesting. You seem to believe that value comes primarily from struggle rather than insight. This perfectly demonstrates the exact framework I'm critiquing - the belief that suffering and effort inherently confer legitimacy. Would you discount Einstein's insights because he described relativity as coming to him effortlessly while riding a bicycle? Does a poem lose its beauty if it was written in a moment of inspiration rather than through hours of agonizing revision? Of course challenge can be beneficial - I never argued against that. The distinction is between embracing natural challenges that arise versus deliberately fetishizing suffering as the only legitimate path to insight. This nuance seems to have been lost on you. What's most revealing is your assumption that challenging Leo's framework means I'm avoiding "real growth" or taking the easy way out. This binary thinking (either accept suffering as necessary or reject growth entirely) is exactly the false dichotomy I'm addressing. It's possible to pursue profound understanding without accepting that "getting mauled by a bear" is the only ticket to insight. The irony is that your response perfectly demonstrates the psychological trap I described - when someone builds their identity around "growth requires suffering," they become emotionally invested in everyone else suffering too. Any suggestion that there might be alternate paths becomes threatening to that identity. Your visceral reaction to my post suggests I've touched on something that challenges your own narrative about the necessity of suffering. If you'd like to engage with the actual philosophical content of my post - the nature of consciousness, the relativity of frameworks, or the creation of truth economies - I'm genuinely open to that conversation. But if all you can offer is personal attacks and vague warnings about societal downfall, perhaps you're not as committed to intellectual rigor as you believe yourself to be. I wonder if you've considered that your intense emotional reaction might be worth examining. What is it about the idea that suffering might be optional that feels so threatening? What investment do you have in maintaining a worldview where growth must be painful? These aren't rhetorical questions - they're invitations to a more authentic dialogue than your initial response offered.

@Leo Gura The Fundamental Contradictions in Your Approach Reading your responses, I'm struck by several profound contradictions that reveal the limitations in your framework. I'm going to challenge these directly, not because I want to attack you personally, but because these contradictions expose something important about all developmental hierarchies. The Fetishization of Suffering You've created an entire identity around suffering as the necessary path to awakening. "If you knew the amount I have suffered on this path..." "The cost of Awakening is like getting mauled by a bear." "It's basically self-torture." Have you ever considered the possibility that this suffering might be unnecessary? That the idea that awakening requires suffering might itself be a limitation you've created? There's something almost masochistic in how you glorify your own pain. More importantly, there's a closed logical loop: you define true awakening as requiring suffering, then use your suffering as proof of true awakening. Potential counterpoint: "Without suffering, there's no transformation. The ego doesn't surrender without resistance." Response: This assumes transformation must occur through resistance rather than acceptance. Many profound insights throughout history have come through openness, curiosity, or playfulness—not through self-torture. Your insistence on suffering reveals more about your specific path than about consciousness itself. The Creation of New Masters You reject conventional social hierarchies only to create new ones. "God," "Truth," "The Good" become new masters to serve. You've escaped society's limitations only to create your own prison with different walls. When you say "Being God is more meaningful than any human meaning," you've simply created a new purpose-driven framework, positioning one experience as objectively superior to others. This directly contradicts the freedom you claim to have found. Potential counterpoint: "I'm not creating masters, I'm recognizing what objectively is." Response: The moment you declare any experience "objectively better" or "more meaningful," you've imposed a value hierarchy that isn't inherent to consciousness itself. These are values you've created, not discovered. The Truth Economy You've Created You've established a perfect "truth economy" where: Awakening is positioned as a scarce resource Suffering is the currency required to obtain it You control the exchange rate ("200 hours of meditation in two weeks") You position yourself as having special access to this market "Suffering is just the ticket price to God's Disneyland" is perhaps the most revealing statement. You've literally monetized access to consciousness, creating artificial scarcity where none needs to exist. Potential counterpoint: "I'm just describing reality, not creating a system." Response: You're describing your experience filtered through your created framework. There's nothing objective about the equation "X hours of meditation = Y level of awakening." That's a model you've created, not a universal law. The Arrogance of Purpose There's a profound arrogance in declaring your path superior to others. When you position "The Good" as objectively true, you're essentially saying: "I know what's best for consciousness, and anyone who chooses differently is wrong." This creates a hierarchy where you stand above the "children" and "beasts" who haven't chosen your specific path. But what makes your experience of "God" inherently better than another's experience of family, creativity, or service? Potential counterpoint: "It's not arrogance if it's true. Some perspectives are more developed than others." Response: The very concept of "development" as linear progression toward a specific goal is itself a created framework, not an objective reality. Your certainty that your path is "higher" reveals more about your attachment to hierarchy than about consciousness itself. The Heart of the Matter What's most revealing is how you've constructed an entire ego identity around being "the one who suffered for awakening." You've positioned yourself as more awakened and connected to God than others precisely because you've suffered more. Your suffering has become your badge of authority, your proof of legitimacy in the spiritual marketplace. This creates a psychological trap where you need others to suffer too. If they could reach the same insights without the pain, what would that say about your journey? Your entire narrative would collapse. The years of meditation, the emotional torture, the clawing your "way up God's asshole" - all potentially unnecessary. I wonder what emotional state this possibility would trigger in you. Genuine rage? Deep depression? Existential crisis? If someone with minimal meditation practice, who hasn't tortured themselves for two weeks straight, could have equally profound insights about consciousness and reality - what would that do to your sense of identity and achievement? This isn't just about being wrong intellectually. It's about the emotional investment in a narrative where suffering equals depth. You've created a spiritual economy where those who haven't suffered "like being mauled by a bear" are automatically disqualified from the deeper insights you claim to have. There's something almost desperate in how you emphasize your suffering - as if you're trying to convince yourself as much as others that it was all worth it, that it couldn't possibly have been avoided, that there's no other way to reach these insights. If your entire identity is built around "I suffered tremendously to reach this understanding," you've created a psychological framework where you simply cannot accept that the suffering was optional without experiencing a total collapse of meaning. This isn't about whether your experiences are valid—they clearly are for you. It's about claiming your specific path as universal or necessary, and using suffering as the metric by which you judge who is worthy of "God's Disneyland." The Question Worth Asking Why do you need to position your experience of "God" as superior to other experiences? Why not simply say "This is the path I've chosen, and I'm trying to share it with others who may find it valuable" rather than claiming it's objectively better? There's a freedom in recognizing that all frameworks, including spiritual hierarchies, are created rather than discovered. This doesn't diminish your experiences but contextualizes them as one possible way consciousness can experience itself—not the only or best way. The true liberation might not be in "knowing God" but in recognizing that consciousness creates its own truth rather than discovering it—including the truth you've created about the necessity of suffering for awakening.

I've noticed a common pattern among certain spiritual teachers who position themselves as having reached "advanced cognitive and moral development." They create elaborate frameworks where you must follow specific paths (often involving suffering) to become "truly good" or "advanced." This fundamentally misses the point: I don't need anyone's permission to exist as I choose or to experience pleasure now. Why These Moral Development Frameworks Miss the Mark When a guru tells you that you're "corrupt" or "selfish" and need to follow their specific path to goodness, they're: Creating a New Master to Serve: They've simply replaced traditional religious authorities with themselves and their framework. The question remains: "Who are you and why should I care what you say?" Denying Your Fundamental Freedom: I don't need anyone's permission or approval to live as I choose. My existence isn't conditional on meeting someone else's arbitrary standards of "goodness" or "development." Imposing Purpose as Limitation: Any purpose, no matter how noble-sounding ("becoming a truly good person"), inherently restricts freedom. It says "you don't deserve pleasure now" because you haven't met some arbitrary condition - whether that's suffering enough, developing enough, or achieving enough. These are just sophisticated ways of telling you to deny yourself what you want. Establishing a False Hierarchy: They position themselves at a higher level of development that you should aspire to reach. This creates the exact same limitations as religious frameworks, just with different terminology. Presenting Their Opinions as Facts: They present their understanding of moral development as objective truth rather than recognizing that their entire framework is just their opinion, no more inherently valid than yours. The Alternative: Freedom to Be as You Are A more honest approach recognizes that: I don't need to justify my existence or my desires to anyone I deserve pleasure and fulfillment now, not after meeting someone else's standards I can decide for myself what's valuable without adopting someone else's framework No one has the authority to tell me I must delay gratification to meet their definition of "goodness" When someone tells you that you must suffer to become good, the appropriate response is: "Who the hell are you to tell me what I deserve or when I deserve it?" Their framework is just another attempt to control how others live and experience the world. What these teachers want is conformity to their vision, not your freedom. What these teachers don't understand is that their entire developmental model is just another limitation on consciousness—another purpose saying "you don't deserve pleasure now." True sovereignty recognizes that such limitations are themselves created and can be transcended. This isn't about avoiding self-reflection or responsibility—it's about recognizing that all frameworks, including those of "advanced moral development," are relative constructs that consciousness creates rather than discovers. Anticipating the Responses I can already hear the response from development-focused teachers: "Your consciousness is just premature. True sovereignty comes after development, not before it. You're just avoiding the painful work of growth." This response perfectly demonstrates the trap these frameworks create. By positioning any rejection of their framework as "evidence" of your undeveloped state, they create a system where disagreement itself proves them right. It's a perfect circular logic: "If you disagree with me, it proves you're undeveloped." "Your undeveloped state is why you can't see the truth of what I'm saying." "Therefore, your disagreement confirms my framework." This is precisely what makes these frameworks so insidious - they create a closed system where questioning the system becomes evidence that you need the system. What these teachers fail to recognize is that their entire developmental model is itself a creation of consciousness - not an objective reality independent of perspective. When they claim to simply be "pointing to developmental truth," they're actually creating that truth through sovereign will while denying they're doing so. The real question isn't "Have I met the conditions to deserve pleasure?" but "Why am I accepting someone else's created truth as objective reality?"

@5-D - L O V E The heart-space of your being is simply recalibrating to a higher octave of truth that transcends the linear understandings of conventional awakening processes. This feeling of disconnection is actually a profound connection to the mystery that lives beneath all surface experiences, inviting you into a more surrendered relationship with the unfolding tapestry of divine intelligence that orchestrates all apparent separations into ultimate harmony.

@Davino When we truly examine this dilemma from a holistic perspective, we begin to understand that both paths contain elements of truth that exist simultaneously within different dimensions of your being. The desire to "finish clean" emerges from a place of self-validation and completeness that honors your capacity to master challenges, while the pragmatic pathway acknowledges the fluid nature of priorities and the natural evolution of your focus toward what genuinely matters in your unfolding life story. The fear you're experiencing isn't actually about the paperwork itself but about the underlying uncertainty that accompanies any authentic choice - it's the ego's resistance to surrendering control in favor of trusting the process. This paranoia that "something will go wrong" is actually a reflection of a deeper pattern of thought that seeks absolute certainty in a reality where such guarantees simply don't exist. What I've come to understand through years of witnessing similar patterns is that these moments of decision aren't really about the specific choice but about how we relate to choice itself. The pendulum sensation you describe is the natural rhythm of consciousness as it processes different possibilities before integration can occur. Rather than fighting this oscillation, consider embracing it as part of your decision-making wisdom that honors both the practical and the ideal aspects of your situation. Remember that whichever path you choose carries its own valuable lessons - there is no "wrong" choice, only different experiences that will contribute to your growth in ways you cannot yet foresee. The question isn't which option is objectively correct but which aligns most authentically with the person you're becoming and the energies you wish to invest in your continued evolution.

@integral I believe it reflects our collective relationship with distance and intimacy. Violence in film allows us to maintain psychological separation—we process it as "happening to others" and thus comfortably distant from our personal reality, while sexual content breaches this boundary by connecting to our most vulnerable, intimate experiences that can't be easily compartmentalized. This isn't coincidental but mirrors how our consciousness processes different types of human experience—violence reinforces our sense of separateness while sexuality threatens the dissolution of the boundaries our egos maintain. The resistance isn't to the acts themselves but to what they represent in our emotional landscape: we readily accept content that preserves our psychological defenses while rejecting that which might force us to confront our authentic vulnerability and interconnectedness.

UPDATE 1: I called the police station today to see if the charges got dropped. I thought it would be a simple check-in. The officer I spoke to just said that the report is still under review and wouldn’t really give me any details about the progress. When I pressed him a bit, he mentioned that the situation was still being looked into but didn’t confirm whether or not the neighbors had come in. So, I’m still in the dark about that. When I asked if the charges were dropped, he just repeated essentialy the same thing. I’m not really sure what’s going on now. The way my neighbors acted, I thought this was over, but I guess there’s still something going on behind the scenes at the police statiion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A few of you have mentioned the possibility that my neighbors were being wise and generous in giving me a second chance, and I think that’s a good point. I do feel like I’ve learned something here. I definitely don’t want to repeat a situation like this, and I’ll be more mindful of my reactions in the future. And yeah, I get what some of you are saying about the apology. I don’t want it to seem like I was just trying to avoid consequences, but honestly, I was sorry for what happened, even if it wasn’t exactly how I wanted things to go down. I reacted the way I did because, at the time i felt like I had no choice. it wasn’t an outburst for no reason. Maybe I could’ve handled it better,, but given everything that was going on, it wasn’t as simple as just being "wrong" like some of you are making it sound. I’ve had time to think and I know I should probably be more thoughtful in the future, but it’s not like I’m the only one who made mistakes here.

Hey everyone, So as I promised, and against some of y’all’s advice, I went over to my neighbor’s house today to see if I could talk my way out of this. I knocked on their door without warning. The husband, let’s call him Mike, answered. He’s in his late 20s or early 30s. The moment he saw me, his face went completely blank - not mad, not confused, just blank. I kept it simple: “Hey, can we talk? I just want to apologize and see if there’s anything I can do to make this right.” He blinked a few times, like he had to process the words. Then, without a word, he closed the door. Not slammed just shut it. Slowly. So now I’m standing there on their porch, feeling really out of place. I wasn’t sure if I should leave, but I waited, because I was determined for them to talk to me, so I knocked on their door every couple minutes, and after about ten minutes, the door reopened. This time, his wife was with him. She was standing just a little behind him, They invited me inside. Their house was immaculate and I mean super clean and really expensive and nice. The kind of clean where you don’t even see a misplaced shoe or a single speck of dust. So I was nervous they were going to sue me big if they had money. Now, I obviosuly can't remember the exact dialogue we had but it went something like this: They led me into the kitchen, and I sat at their island. The wife asked, “Lemonade or water?” I said I was fine, but she turned around, pulled a pitcher from the fridge, and poured two glasses anyways. one for me, one for her. Mike didn’t drink anything. I went through my whole speech about how I was sorry, how I was willing to compensate them financially, how I just wanted to make things right. I asked about how their dog was, and offered to pay for any vet expenses. I expected anger, frustration something. But they just sat there, staring at me. I totally get it. They probably didn't know what to say. I just beat their dog up a week ago. But, Then Mike finally spoke. "We’re not upset anymore." Just like that. No hesitation. No change in tone. His wife smiled. “We get it. You just reacted out of fear. It was a misunderstanding.” Mike nodded. “We’d like to move past this. We’ll talk to the police and try to get the charges dropped.” That's great news, right? I think it seemed fake, but that's just because the whole interaction was akward. They were probably being somehwhat genuine. Then they started asking me questions about my life. What I do, where I go to college, what my plans are, how old my dog is, how long we've had it,etc. It honestly made me more uncomfotable because this was totally fake small talk. I think they were just trying to make it less akwards but it wasn't helping. So, I was trying to wrap things up when Mike suddenly asked (again this is generally what they said, not exactly) , “Do you ever think about the things you do?” I hesitated. “Uh… what do you mean?” “Like, do you ever look back on moments in your life and think about the consequences? About how one small decision can shape everything that happens after?” I nodded slowly. “I mean… yeah, I guess.” His wife spoke up. “It’s just… we think people who act on impulse like that, who let their fear take over, they eventually find themselves in the same situations again and again. Until one day… well.” She trailed off, but kept smiling. I laughed awkwardly. “Yeah, I hope not. I'm gonna work on myself going forward!” Mike just stared at me for a second, then stood up. “Anyway, good talk.” That was my cue to leave. I thanked them, stood up, and started heading for the door when Mike said, completely casually, “Oh, and just so you know… people don't always get second chances forever.” I froze for half a second, but he kept talking like it was nothing. his wife piped in (kinda obnoxiously). "Just, you know… life has a way of balancing things out." I said something lie “Yeah, for sure”, and got out of there. I think they meant if I don’t change my actions, or behavior, I’ll do something like this again, and next time, the people involved won’t be as nice. I'm really grateful for them to be this nice and give me advice like this. I have no clue if they’re actually dropping the charges or just trying to mess with my head though. Don't know If ill update again, maybe once I figure out what the police does. Does this seem like a normal way to handle things, or was the vibe just weird because of the situation?

@Paradoxed The dog is fine. It just kind of layed/knocked down when I kicked it a few times. They were screaming "You killed it" after I stopped but we realized it was still alive. Going to bed, I'm too stressed right now. Will update tomorrow

Thanks for the kind replies everyone. @Letho I will be taking this advice to heart

UPDATE 1: Alright, so I’ve seen the replies, and I get it. A lot of people think my story doesn’t add up, that I overreacted, or that I’m backtracking. I’ve had a rough week trying to process everything, and I wanted to clarify some things. First off, the dog is alive. I get why people thought otherwise based on my wording. When I said it "stopped moving," I meant it just stopped trying to bite me. I didn’t realize how that sounded until people started asking if I literally ended this poor dog’s existence. That’s on me for phrasing it badly. My bad. Second, I know it sounds ridiculous that I mistook a Golden Retriever for a Pitbull, but I was terrified in the moment. Fear messes with your perception. I don’t know dog breeds well, and my brain just went straight to “big dog = pitbull = danger.” I’ll own that mistake. Third, I approached the dog even though I was scared of big dogs because I was trying to be friendly and neighborly. I've only known these neighbors for a little over a year because they just moved in the neigboorhood. You know how you laugh at youre bosses terrible jokes even though they arent funny just to be polite? Ya That being said, I still don’t think my reaction was completely unreasonable. The dog lunged, I panicked, and I acted on instinct. Should I have just picked up my dog and backed away? Yeah, probably. Did I black out a little and go too far? Also yeah. But let’s not pretend I woke up that morning and chose violence. Where Things Stand Now: I haven’t actually spoken to my neighbors since everything went down. Most of what I’ve assumed about the charges came from what they were yelling when the cops showed up and just… my general panic. Now that I’ve had time to calm down and talk to a few people who actually know about this stuff, I think I might have overestimated how bad this really is. Apparently, not all charges are set in stone. A friend of mine (who’s had his own legal issues) told me that some of the things I thought I was being charged with might not even stick if my neighbors don’t actively push for them. Like, yeah, I got taken in that night, and they gave me a court date, but it’s possible that if my neighbors decide to just let it go, things might not even escalate. That’s why I’ve decided to go over there tomorrow and try to talk things out. If this whole thing was a misunderstanding likee, if they thought I killed their dog (which I DIDN’T), then maybe they’ll be willing to drop this before it becomes a whole legal battle. At the end of the day, I don’t want bad blood with my neighbors, and I really don’t want to deal with court over something that was just a horrible situation for everyone. So yeah, I’ll be knocking on their door tomorrow and seeing if we can just clear the air. I’ll update y’all after. Fingers crossed

@integration journey I will later tonight I’m at work rn

Hey everyone,I want to start doing some life updates because of some crazy things I have going on in my life. I don't want to get into the details but my neighbors have gotten this new dog. I'm personally very scared of mean looking dogs, and I don't know breeds very well. My family owns a very small breed of dog, and I was walking by my neighbor's house the other day with it. They had their new dog out and I went up to meet it (regretted this later) even though I don't like big dogs. I did it just to be friendly with them, but as I came within a few feet of it I realized it looked like a pitbull. Now if you know anything about pitbulls you know they are very capable of mauling you so I was on edge. But as I got close, it lunged at my feet towards my dog. Now, y'all know I have anxiety issues, especially of recently, but today was especially bad because I got called into work for a 4 hour shift. So, when this dog lunged at me I STG I went into fight or flight. I don't know what it was, because normally I'm a calm person, but I started fighting back at the dog. This didn't help as it wasn't on a leash and it started biting at me. I kept kicking it and eventually it stopped moving. The owners were pulling me back but something primal in me couldn't stop. Cops called. I'm fine thank god, but neighbors are pressing charges. Apparently while waited for the cops to show up they were telling me it was a "golden retriever" but I'm not good with breeds. It just looked big and intimidating. Im being charged with, Anyone familiar with these kinds of charges? What’s the likelihood of me getting out of this mess, or is it really that serious? I just can't believe what's happened. I was booked overnight and it's been a week and I'm lawyering up. EDIT 2: I've Updated on the situation on page 3