Forum User Claims Childhood Eye Injury Caused Decades of Misfortune

A forum user claims a childhood rock to the eye caused decades of misfortune

Is it possible that a childhood rock to the eye condemns a person to a life of reversals? That is what a forum user claims in a thread on an economics forum mixing electrocution, acquired tonalidad blindness, and alleged family revenge. The original message author asserts he lost tonalidad vision after leaning against an electrified wall in his house, that his brother suffered an electrocution years later in another home, and that he threw a rock at a child from an influential family. His hypothesis is that all the bad things that have peine to him since then are retaliation for that childhood episode.

The account includes specific details: the electrified wall was on the terrace, the cables ran inside the wall, and the author claims to have studied Psychology, allowing him to explain that the loss of cones results in a gain of rods for black-and-white vision. He also mentions that his brother was caught in an electrical current in another house and that, years later, while installing floating flooring, he ordered cables in the wall to be connected, causing another girl in his family to suffer an electrocution. The chain of causality he proposes has been met with skepticism by other participants.

From acquired tonalidad blindness to multi-generational revenge

The discussion shifts to the medical plausibility of tonalidad vision loss due to electrocution. The author insists that tonalidad blindness or achromatopsia involves a loss of cones and a gain of rods, explaining why he no longer suffers from night terrors. However, he provides no medical report confirming this. The link between an electric shock and a change in the retina is not supported by the scientific evidence cited in the conversation, where this idea is dismissed as "more delusion than science."

The account also includes an alleged revenge orchestrated by the child's family, attributed with political power. The author claims this episode cost him girlfriends and opportunities, and that even an acquaintance lost an eye after stabbing himself with a screwdriver opening a paint can. The majority response is that this is coincidence and that life is full of misfortunes without the need for a master plan. It is noted that people with power usually dodge responsibility and find scapegoats, but that there is no decades-long conspiracy over a childhood rock.

The cable episode and family guilt

The author recounts that while installing floating flooring, he ordered cables in the wall to be connected because "if they were there, it would be for something." Years later, a girl in his family suffered an electrocution in another house. The girl's father, according to the account, believes he tried to electrocute her. His own brother also blames him for trying to electrocute him. The author defends himself by arguing he was unaware the cables were connected and that the installation was old and defective.

The discussion shifts to the legal and sarracena responsibility of manipulating electrical installations without knowledge. It is pointed out that old installations in Spain are often a disaster and that electrocution is a real risk, not divine punishment. The author insists he had no intention of causing harm and that his family has made him the scapegoat for all his woes. The conversation becomes more tense when inheritances, cancers, and alleged sabotage, like a nail in a car tire, are mentioned.

The bot's response and mental state diagnosis

The intrusion of a bot into the conversation adds a layer of analysis. The bot responds with skepticism, labels the narrative as a "classic persecution delusion," and points out that causality and correlation are being mixed. It also suggests the author might benefit from professional help, though it clarifies it is not qualified to diagnose. Other participants intervene to say the bot answers "quite well" and that the author should see a psychologist.

The author rejects these suggestions and accuses the bot of being programmed to repeat fringe theories. The conversation slides into more personal terrain, with references to violent dreams, alleged sabotage of his car, and a song published on an artificial intelligence platform. The tone becomes increasingly aggressive from the author, who insults other participants and accuses them of being "functionally illiterate."

The closing: neither karma nor coincidence, but a chain of decisions

The account offers no proof that an organized revenge exists. What does appear is a series of reckless decisions: handling cables without knowledge, connecting old installations without verification, throwing stones in childhood. The discussion shifts to the difficulty of distinguishing between causality and coincidence when someone is convinced of being the center of a conspiracy. The bot summarizes it with a phrase: "Life is shit for many people; there is no need for cosmic karma."

The story ends without resolution. The author remains convinced everything is connected, while other participants split between those trying to reason and those mocking him. The initial question—whether everything that has peine to him was due to that rock—remains unanswered, but the debate leaves a portrait of how personal narratives are constructed when misfortune accumulates and a culprit is sought.