Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,406
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 9, 2017 19:00:55 GMT -5
Not working, but dealing with family drama... not much of an improvement!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 22:39:48 GMT -5
The only Comic Related Show that I'll be watching is Riverdale. Goodbye Arrow, The Flash, DC Legends of Tomorrow, The Inhumans, and now Supergirl. I just find these shows not my cup of tea anymore and decided that Riverdale is the only show in town.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 18, 2017 5:36:34 GMT -5
I enjoyed the first season of Legends of tomorrow. I don't generally watch comic TV programs.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 18, 2017 6:13:24 GMT -5
An eye for an eye is not a bad philosophy to abide by. When someone has taken the initiative to cause some wrongdoing to you unproved, exacting revenge on an equal level can be a necessary evil.
Having someone suffer the same mental or physical anguish that they decided on their own accord to cause you is simply balancing the scales of the universe. I can't stand the thought of someone going about their lives after stolen your money, caused a hit and run, killed your loved one, etc.
I don't care if that makes me "no better than they are". Yes I do WANT to make myself feel better. Getting revenge does that.
So basically...Punisher > Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 10:06:00 GMT -5
An eye for an eye is not a bad philosophy to abide by. When someone has taken the initiative to cause some wrongdoing to you unproved, exacting revenge on an equal level can be a necessary evil. Having someone suffer the same mental or physical anguish that they decided on their own accord to cause you is simply balancing the scales of the universe. I can't stand the thought of someone going about their lives after stolen your money, caused a hit and run, killed your loved one, etc. I don't care if that makes me "no better than they are". Yes I do WANT to make myself feel better. Getting revenge does that. So basically...Punisher > Batman. If you've inflicted revenge on someone and caused them harm, haven't you just made yourself the target of someone else's revenge, which would be totally justified by your own philosophy. If your actions are a consequences of their actions, your actions should have the same consequences. Where does the cycle end and when does it stop being justified? -M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 18, 2017 10:36:40 GMT -5
An eye for an eye is not a bad philosophy to abide by. When someone has taken the initiative to cause some wrongdoing to you unproved, exacting revenge on an equal level can be a necessary evil. Having someone suffer the same mental or physical anguish that they decided on their own accord to cause you is simply balancing the scales of the universe. I can't stand the thought of someone going about their lives after stolen your money, caused a hit and run, killed your loved one, etc. I don't care if that makes me "no better than they are". Yes I do WANT to make myself feel better. Getting revenge does that. So basically...Punisher > Batman. If you've inflicted revenge on someone and caused them harm, haven't you just made yourself the target of someone else's revenge, which would be totally justified by your own philosophy. If your actions are a consequences of their actions, your actions should have the same consequences. Where does the cycle end and when does it stop being justified? -M When the person that started the act of aggression first realizes they were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 10:40:26 GMT -5
If you've inflicted revenge on someone and caused them harm, haven't you just made yourself the target of someone else's revenge, which would be totally justified by your own philosophy. If your actions are a consequences of their actions, your actions should have the same consequences. Where does the cycle end and when does it stop being justified? -M When the person that started the act of aggression first realizes they were wrong. And if they don't does it just become a neverending cycle of violence, such as the classic Hatfield/McCoy feuds, with no victor, no end, and nothing gained by any of it? -M
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 20, 2017 19:00:34 GMT -5
I don't have the freedom to protest while I'm delivering Mail. I would be disciplined. Why does the players in the NFL get the right to do it?
There I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 22:32:11 GMT -5
I don't have the freedom to protest while I'm delivering Mail. I would be disciplined. Why does the players in the NFL get the right to do it? There I said it. To quote from the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the 1943 case of the West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette The decision essentially said it is unconstitutional and illegal for any official of the government to compel a citizen to participate in a an act regarded as patriotic. The NFL players don't have to stand for the anthem because the Supreme Court says forcing them to stand violates their Constitutional rights. IF your employer forces you to participate in such act, you have legal recourse based on that decision to challenge that policy. The specific case applied to forcing students to participate in the Pledge of allegiance, but the precedent set applies to all public acts of patriotism. -M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 21, 2017 0:25:48 GMT -5
When the person that started the act of aggression first realizes they were wrong. And if they don't does it just become a neverending cycle of violence, such as the classic Hatfield/McCoy feuds, with no victor, no end, and nothing gained by any of it? -M Yes it potentially does. But all things must end eventually. Ever conflict has and will. If you let people walk over you though without seeking justice what have you gained in the process? An ass whipping? A bitter reminder that someone wronged you and got away with it and you had the potential to balance the scales, but decided not to? Not sure what that does for you moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 0:39:57 GMT -5
And if they don't does it just become a neverending cycle of violence, such as the classic Hatfield/McCoy feuds, with no victor, no end, and nothing gained by any of it? -M Yes it potentially does. But all things must end eventually. Ever conflict has and will. If you let people walk over you though without seeking justice what have you gained in the process? An ass whipping? A bitter reminder that someone wronged you and got away with it and you had the potential to balance the scales, but decided not to? Not sure what that does for you moving forward. And I am not sure what escalating the conflict gains you either. An ego stroke that you're stronger than someone, we'll that's temporary, there's always someone stronger and eventually you'll be the one getting your ass beat, and starting a fight against someone who wronged you can get your ass whupped just as easily and probably more quickly than doing nothing. A conflict only ends when someone chooses to end it, so why not simply choose to end it. He who lives by the sword, dies by it, if you go looking for conflict, the only guarantee is you will find conflict, there's no guarantee you'll emerge victorious and probably not unscathed. There is no balancing the scales, that's the thing. It's a logical fallacy, your actions will only cause another reaction and so on, the scales will never be balanced, and moving forward all you can do is wait for the other shoe to drop when the person who feels wronged by you makes their move to "balance the scales" back. You'll have no peace of mind and any satisfaction you get from "balancing the scales" will be illusory and temporary. The only conflicts that end, end in death, of not of the combatants, then of innocents unfairly drawn into the chaos of the conflict. Otherwise resentments linger and fester and develop into "new" conflicts which are in reality consequences of the previous one. There are situations where some kind of response in necessitated, but violence is the last recourse of the desperate. -M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 21, 2017 2:24:10 GMT -5
Yes it potentially does. But all things must end eventually. Ever conflict has and will. If you let people walk over you though without seeking justice what have you gained in the process? An ass whipping? A bitter reminder that someone wronged you and got away with it and you had the potential to balance the scales, but decided not to? Not sure what that does for you moving forward. And I am not sure what escalating the conflict gains you either. An ego stroke that you're stronger than someone, we'll that's temporary, there's always someone stronger and eventually you'll be the one getting your ass beat, and starting a fight against someone who wronged you can get your ass whupped just as easily and probably more quickly than doing nothing. A conflict only ends when someone chooses to end it, so why not simply choose to end it. He who lives by the sword, dies by it, if you go looking for conflict, the only guarantee is you will find conflict, there's no guarantee you'll emerge victorious and probably not unscathed. There is no balancing the scales, that's the thing. It's a logical fallacy, your actions will only cause another reaction and so on, the scales will never be balanced, and moving forward all you can do is wait for the other shoe to drop when the person who feels wronged by you makes their move to "balance the scales" back. You'll have no peace of mind and any satisfaction you get from "balancing the scales" will be illusory and temporary. The only conflicts that end, end in death, of not of the combatants, then of innocents unfairly drawn into the chaos of the conflict. Otherwise resentments linger and fester and develop into "new" conflicts which are in reality consequences of the previous one. There are situations where some kind of response in necessitated, but violence is the last recourse of the desperate. -M It can gain you the feeling that justice has been served. Compared to the alternative of bending over and taking it whenever someone crosses you unproved and wrongs you in some fashion, I think I'll take my chances with singing another tune. The tune of eye for an eye. That doesn't mean you go looking for conflict. Just means don't mess with me and I won't mess with you. Until people learn not to take the initiative to indulge in their own selfishness by taking that first step to wrong someone, there will always be potential conflict. Letting someone off the hook that walks over you is basically an open invitation for everyone else to do so. Yeah, you may not come out unscathed. There no absolutes in life. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees though. That's the way I see it. Reminds me of school bullies. They aren't going to simply stop being someone's tormentor unless that person takes some kind of action. Maybe it starts a conflict that continues indefinitely. But that was going to happen anyway except it was one sided. Actually it wouldn't be a conflict seeing as one person keeps getting stomped on. There is a reason why people love those moments in film where the protagonist gets their revenge in some fashion. Because deep down we all want to be that person that gets back at the person that F'd with us.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,406
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 21, 2017 9:21:25 GMT -5
The real big man (or woman) is not the one who takes revenge, but who finds the strength to forgive... or at least to decide that the never-ending chain of retaliation ends with oneself.
This does not mean we must meekly accept the oppressor’s wrong or the proud man’s contumely. It is entirely possible to stand on one’s two feet and defend one’s rights without resorting to revenge. That is Spider-man’s way as opposed to the Punisher’s, and I am convinced that it is what separates civilization from the law of the jungle.
The catharsis of revenge is certainly satisfactory, in a very primal way... but when we become adults, both as individuals and as societies, we are supposed to replace instant gratification with self-discipline, and favour decisions that will benefit the greater number in the long run. Hence a justice system to replace lynch mobs, and a police force to replace vigilantes.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Oct 21, 2017 12:46:59 GMT -5
I think I'll take my chances with singing another tune. The tune of eye for an eye. A scorching hot take straight out of 1750 BCE, "An eye for an eye" does not mean what you seem to think it means. A better reading might be "Only one eye for one eye." The intent is that the punishment should not exceed the offense. For example, a man should not be put to death for the theft of a loaf of bread. Further, the punishment is intended to be administered by a governing body, not the injured party. The meaning has obviously been corrupted in the ensuing millenia, but the original intent of the Hammurabic Codes was to reduce instances of private citizens taking revenge upon one another by providing recourse to the law, rather than codifying vengeance.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 21, 2017 15:46:11 GMT -5
And if they don't does it just become a neverending cycle of violence, such as the classic Hatfield/McCoy feuds, with no victor, no end, and nothing gained by any of it? -M Yes it potentially does. But all things must end eventually. Ever conflict has and will. If you let people walk over you though without seeking justice what have you gained in the process? An ass whipping? A bitter reminder that someone wronged you and got away with it and you had the potential to balance the scales, but decided not to? Not sure what that does for you moving forward. You could heed the words of the noted liberal hippie carpenter from Nazareth, which were: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Visiting evil upon another person for his actions toward you will bring no positive result and will likely lead to an escalation of activity. Sometimes, even though someone did you wrong, you have to be the bigger man or else you are just as guilty as they.
|
|