True Crime

Founders Running Club (FRC) is a global community where founders, investors, and builders come together. 40+ countries, 60+ locations. Here, networking and community come first. We use running as an excuse to meet in person. 50% of our members run only with us, usually just once a week. In a way, we pretend we’re a running club. At FRC Chisinau, we meet weekly and run 5km (also possible 2.5km). We gather for a coffee and croissants afterwards. 🕤 Every Saturday, 09:30 📍Teatrul Verde: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/fQidCEuVKyQmEojM9](https://maps.app.goo.gl/fQidCEuVKyQmEojM9) Join our WhatsApp group for routes and coordination: [https://chat.whatsapp.com/FTAjoG4gigDLfUoJzFf5tN](https://chat.whatsapp.com/FTAjoG4gigDLfUoJzFf5tN)

Founders Running Club (FRC) is a global community where founders, investors, and builders come together. 40+ countries, 60+ locations. Here, networking and community come first. We use running as an excuse to meet in person. 50% of our members run only with us, usually just once a week. In a way, we pretend we’re a running club. At FRC Chisinau, we meet weekly and run 5km (also possible 2.5km). We gather for a coffee and croissants afterwards. 🕤 Every Saturday, 09:30 📍Teatrul Verde: [https://maps.app.goo.gl/fQidCEuVKyQmEojM9](https://maps.app.goo.gl/fQidCEuVKyQmEojM9) Join our WhatsApp group for routes and coordination: [https://chat.whatsapp.com/FTAjoG4gigDLfUoJzFf5tN](https://chat.whatsapp.com/FTAjoG4gigDLfUoJzFf5tN)

A very unusual choice for his group... Unknown Number: High School Catfish is an American [true crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_crime "True crime") documentary film directed by [Skye Borgman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skye_Borgman "Skye Borgman") and released to [streaming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media "Streaming media") on [Netflix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix "Netflix") on August 29, 2025. The documentary explores the events and investigation into an unknown person [cyberbully](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying "Cyberbullying") and [harassing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment "Harassment") teenagers in [Beal City, Michigan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beal_City,_Michigan "Beal City, Michigan") using an unknown number via insults and sexual claims. It also explores the increasingly great impact of the harassment on the community, the eventual reveal of the culprit, and the trial that followed. IMPORTANT INFO: I strongly suggest not reading anything about it online before seeing it. It's best viewed with no previous knowledge. This documentary contains crude terminology and deals with cyberbullying, which may be a trigger for some folks. PLEASE NOTE - WE ARE STARTING AT 6:30, WHICH IS THIRTY MINUTES EARLIER THAN USUAL. Unfortunately, it is only available on Netflix. If you would like to attend but do not have Netflix, say so and maybe we can figure something out.

Welcome, readers! Our April read is **_Martyr!_ by Kaveh Akbar.** The story follows a young Iranian American poet grappling with grief, addiction, and the aching question of what makes a life meaningful. Drawn into an unexpected friendship with a terminally ill artist, he begins to confront faith, love, and the seduction of self-destruction. Lyrical, darkly funny, and emotionally piercing, the novel wrestles with beauty and despair in equal measure. It’s a story about longing—to be seen, to be forgiven, and to matter. Looking forward to discussing with everyone! We will meet at Zaftig Brewing Co in their event room in the back. We are welcome to bring in our own food, but **drinks must be purchased at the bar.** Happy reading! 📖

Join Neurospicy Columbus at the Stauff's for coffee and then a stroll through the Book Loft nearby! This will be a friendly chat for like minded individuals with Autism and/or ADHD (or somewhere on the Neurodiverse Spectra).

Let’s meet and share our thoughts about Carson McCullers’ novella, The Ballad of The Sad Café.

Let's catch up and have a relaxed chat, including chat about the book Disability Visibility. This collection of essays is available at the library. You'll be invited to share the essay that you related to the most, and the essay that did the most to grow your awareness of something new. It's OK if you don't read the whole book!

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?