NationStates Jolt Archive

I now declare that above all else, my HATE for the following:
-People, who have so much potential so succeed, but then blow it on being assholes to everybody. Then they go labeling people worthless when they don't friggin realize they are the truly worthless ones.

Stupid fools - they would never last one second in the real world :mp5:

Well, one can only assume there's a story behind that, so what's up?

If you havent read Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground" i suggest you go read it.

Well, one can only assume there's a story behind that, so what's up?
Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back and trying to turn me against my friends...he's obviously failed miserably :sniper:

my biggest hate, as ever, is small-minded people who do not think things through, or consider alternative points of view.

if i'm ever guilty of this, i want you all to slap me

Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back...


Don't get mad, get even you loser!

Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back and trying to turn me against my friends...he's obviously failed miserably :sniper:

I hate that word.

Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back...
So what do you plan to do about it? Perhaps counter with a few choice rumors of your own?

Don't get mad, get even you loser!
That would mean that he sinks to the other guy's level, and what does that accomplish?

Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back and trying to turn me against my friends...he's obviously failed miserably :sniper:
yeah that sucks. big time.
people suck.

why would anyone do things like that? what makes them do it? :confused:

Beat the crap out of him. Don't care about stooping to his level or anything; show him who's boss.

Don't get mad, get even you loser!
It's no use getting even with him....everybody agrees that the **** is already the lowest of the lowest people. I'm just waiting for him to screw up soon, I'm counting the days

That would mean that he sinks to the other guy's level, and what does that accomplish?

It's called REVENGE. It feels great. Lowers the BP.

It's called REVENGE. It feels great. Lowers the BP.
I find it interesting that your post showed up after SP's reply... I just find it very amusing...

It's no use getting even with him....everybody agrees that the **** is already the lowest of the lowest people. I'm just waiting for him to screw up soon, I'm counting the days

Get yourself an alibi, a tire iron, and gloves. Then beat him down in the dark.

It's called REVENGE. It feels great. Lowers the BP.
its pointless and achieves nothing.


"take an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi

its pointless and achieves nothing.


"take an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi


Take an eye for and eye, then go after their head.-Me

BTW Gandhi was assassinated

Some worthless **** is spreading rumors about me behind my back and trying to turn me against my friends...he's obviously failed miserably :sniper:

Sleep with his mom, regardless of whatever rumors he spreads, you'll still one up him.

its pointless and achieves nothing.


"take an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi
Sometimes taking revenge on someone can deter others from trying to hurt you.

its pointless and achieves nothing.


"take an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi

The last thing I want to do is agree with Johnny Wadd.

But there are definite therapeutic benefits to malicious mischief in the name of revenge.

:)

Sleep with his mom, regardless of whatever rumors he spreads, you'll still one up him.

Your assuming his mom is good looking. If not *shudder*

"take an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi

Which was odd, considering his whole life revolved around getting revenge on the british.

Take an eye for and eye, then go after their head.-Me

BTW Gandhi was assassinated
i know. i'm beginning to really dislike people like you.

Sometimes taking revenge on someone can deter others from trying to hurt you.
i would rather be hurt


Which was odd, considering his whole life revolved around getting revenge on the british.
revenge? no. freedom? yes.

I now declare that above all else, my HATE for the following:
-People, who have so much potential so succeed, but then blow it on being assholes to everybody. Then they go labeling people worthless when they don't friggin realize they are the truly worthless ones.

Stupid fools - they would never last one second in the real world :mp5:
Wow, you and I are on the same page there!

my biggest hate, as ever, is small-minded people who do not think things through, or consider alternative points of view.

if i'm ever guilty of this, i want you all to slap me
[ Administers industrial strength bitch-slap to Pure Metal! ] There. Happy now? :D

Gandhi put himself in a position to be murdered because he hoped it would stop the muslims and hindus form killing each other.

It might not have worked for long, but respect to the man for his great sacrifice.

BTW Gandhi was assassinated

My my, how right you are. But you fail to mention that Gandhi was assassinated by people so weak-minded that they were terrified of what his revolution could mean.

The last thing I want to do is agree with Johnny Wadd.



Well, it shows just how smart you are, that you could even comprehend the logic of Waddisky.

[ Administers industrial strength bitch-slap to Pure Metal! ] There. Happy now? :D
owch:(

now please tell me what i did to deserve that so i can learn from it & hopefully not do it again (& not get another bitchslap :D )


*rubs cheek*

i know. i'm beginning to really dislike people like you.




Well, what are you going to do? Write a nasty letter? Show me your English teeth? Remember, no violence!

Well, what are you going to do? Write a nasty letter? Show me your English teeth? Remember, no violence!
do i need to do anything? :rolleyes:

do i need to do anything? :rolleyes:
Dude, you are such a victim.

Dude, you are such a victim.

no, they appear to be a pacifist, which is highly noble of them

Dude, you are such a victim.
wtf? :confused:

care to explain?


edit: yes i am a pacifist. got a problem with that, buddy?

*doesn't put up fists ;) *

no, they appear to be a pacifist, which is highly noble of them
I don't find it noble at all. Just weird.

I don't find it noble at all. Just weird.

try having the courage of a pacifist for a while, you'll see what I mean

try having the courage of a pacifist for a while, you'll see what I mean
Why is it courageous to let someone harm you when you can do something about it?

Why is it courageous to let someone harm you when you can do something about it?

try it and see how hard it is.

try it and see how hard it is.
It wouldn't be easy to castrate myself either, but if I did it I wouldn't be called courageous, I'd be called crazy.

Why is it courageous to let someone harm you when you can do something about it?
in "doing something about it" you will be harming them back. you are, literally, lowering yourself to their level. there is no need to fight back - even if you can.

understand the words, find the meaning in them. "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind". the futility of revenge, of 'doing something about it' only serves to make the world a worse place.

its mostly a moral standpoint. i never want to harm anyone in any way. i would hope i would have the resolve & courage to refuse to fight back or "do something about it" in an applicable situation. i assume you don't have any moral problems with harming others, so its not an issue for you. fair enough.

It wouldn't be easy to castrate myself either, but if I did it I wouldn't be called courageous, I'd be called crazy.

pacifism takes away the psychological power of the oppressor. Most humans find oppression of a pacifistic person/people abhorent when they see it, hence the effect of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That is also why they both died for their cause, because it removes the power of the oppressor. Beyond death, how can they beat you? You win even if they kill you.

pacifism takes away the psychological power of the oppressor. Most humans find oppression of a pacifistic person/people abhorent when they see it, hence the effect of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That is also why they both died for their cause, because it removes the power of the oppressor. Beyond death, how can they beat you? You win even if they kill you.
exactly. as gandhi said "the truth will always prevail"

try having the courage of a pacifist for a while, you'll see what I mean

a funny quote about pacisfists...


He who turns quickly to violence is a small man, but he who does not turn to it at all is equally as small. There is a narrow path between the two with which a man must make his way.

Story behind that: martial arts class one of the mental exams uses this story for the above proverb: Someone once asks confuscius(sp), "should you repay evil with kidness?" Confuscius' response, "Repay kindness with kindness, and evil with justice"

That's why i could never be a pacifist.

edit: o, and the use of the word "****" imo is against the rules and regs of this forum, so if it's ok to say that how come it's not okay for me to have my "dumb ass zombie thing" in my sig?

Get yourself an alibi, a tire iron, and gloves. Then beat him down in the dark.


what a coincidence....thats exactly what I am doing this weekend!

a funny quote about pacisfists...


He who turns quickly to violence is a small man, but he who does not turn to it at all is equally as small. There is a narrow path between the two with which a man must make his way.

Story behind that: martial arts class one of the mental exams uses this story for the above proverb: Someone once asks confuscius(sp), "should you repay evil with kidness?" Confuscius' response, "Repay kindness with kindness, and evil with justice"

That's why i could never be a pacifist.
pacifism does not necessarily negate justice, but acheives it by another means. one that may appear alien to many people.
if someone provokes you (say, pushes you), what is the usual reaction? to do the same back, to push them back. its a natural response. pacifism requires the stength of will not to succumb to this.


an alternative quote:

"resorting to violence is an admission of inability"

It's been said on this thread that to get revenge reduces you to the level of your adversary. I disagree. Using violence unnecessarily lowers you. Using violence to defend yourself, defend people you care about, or prevent future violence to yourself and your loved ones elevates you. There's a time and a place for nonviolence. In the case of Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. they couldn't hope to win by violent means. In the case of Pearl Harbor, or a woman about to be raped, nonviolence would have guaranteed defeat and humiliation.

I respect your stance on that PM.....really I do. If someone pushes me, I most likely will make every attempt to resolve the issue in a peacful manner. However, if the push becomes a shove and the shove becomes a right hook, I feel like I have the right and responsibilty to defend myself.....and my loved ones if I feel that they may be in danger. I cannot stand aside and let someone beat me down and simply take comfort in the fact that I did not hurt a person who who hurt me.

Of course I am pretty good at defensive tactics so I might just try to pin them down until the authorities arrived or something. I'd never go out looking for a fight, but I will defend myself. I have a lot to live for, so I cant let my kids be orphaned because their mom didnt at least try to defend herself against some violent attacker.


have I gone way off the path?

pacifism does not necessarily negate justice, but acheives it by another means. one that may appear alien to many people.
if someone provokes you (say, pushes you), what is the usual reaction? to do the same back, to push them back. its a natural response. pacifism requires the stength of will not to succumb to this.


an alternative quote:

"resorting to violence is an admission of inability"

the usual reaction i would have if someone pushing me isn't to push them back. it would depend on the situation at hand. I'm not going to let someone beat the crap outta me, but i'm not going to get into a fight when i can get out of it. That's why they say it's a narrow path ;).

your alternative quote... so if someone starts wailin' on you you just gonna sit there and ask why? or try to get them to stop w/o retaliation?

edit: a good book to read on violence/nonviolence (well, series really) that is fiction but goes into some detail about when violence should/shouldn't be used, thoughts on free will, and a cpl other good things is the "Sword of Truth" series.

I respect your stance on that PM.....really I do. If someone pushes me, I most likely will make every attempt to resolve the issue in a peacful manner. However, if the push becomes a shove and the shove becomes a right hook, I feel like I have the right and responsibilty to defend myself.....and my loved ones if I feel that they may be in danger. I cannot stand aside and let someone beat me down and simply take comfort in the fact that I did not hurt a person who who hurt me.

Of course I am pretty good at defensive tactics so I might just try to pin them down until the authorities arrived or something. I'd never go out looking for a fight, but I will defend myself. I have a lot to live for, so I cant let my kids be orphaned because their mom didnt at least try to defend herself against some violent attacker.


have I gone way off the path?
precisely. if, as a pacifist, you are provoked or attacked, there is no need to simply stand there and absorb the punches. as you say, you can pin them down or otherwise stop them from inflicting harm on you through a non-violent, non-harmful means. of course, running away is always an option of sorts.

as for if someone started beating on my loved ones, i don't know. my brain would say not to get violent, but my heart would be screaming to fight back (more-so than if i, personally, was being attacked)

I cannot stand aside and let someone beat me down and simply take comfort in the fact that I did not hurt a person who who hurt me.
i wouldn't say i'd find that comforting, just i would know i'm right. as long as i don't suffer any permament damage i'm happy - cuts heal, bones heal, but morality can never be regained.
as Gandhi said (i'm quoting him a lot tonight...) "if you want change, you must be the change." i'm willing to potentially put my health on the line for that change.


It's been said on this thread that to get revenge reduces you to the level of your adversary. I disagree. Using violence unnecessarily lowers you. Using violence to defend yourself, defend people you care about, or prevent future violence to yourself and your loved ones elevates you. There's a time and a place for nonviolence. In the case of Ghandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. they couldn't hope to win by violent means. In the case of Pearl Harbor, or a woman about to be raped, nonviolence would have guaranteed defeat and humiliation.
don't confuse non-violence with 'standing by and doing nothing'. and conversley to what you said, there may be a time and place for violence - but only as an absolute last resort in some circumstances.

the 'woman being raped' scenario, then. if there are people about, a simple non-violent solution would be to yell for help, and then the helpers drag the rapist away - no violence, even if provoked. if there's no-one around, however, and the woman cannot get away, this is one of the rare situations where i would say violence is ok - not excessive, but enough to be able to get away.

but i utterly disagree that resorting to violence in self defense "elevates" you.

the usual reaction i would have if someone pushing me isn't to push them back. it would depend on the situation at hand. I'm not going to let someone beat the crap outta me, but i'm not going to get into a fight when i can get out of it. That's why they say it's a narrow path ;).

ok agreed, it is a narrow path (seeing as i have just said that there are a few select scenarios where violence in retaliation is justified), but it is a very narrow path.



your alternative quote... so if someone starts wailin' on you you just gonna sit there and ask why? or try to get them to stop w/o retaliation?

i would sit there and ask them why. if i can shut them up using non-violent means i will, of course. if not, i will leave.

as you say, you can pin them down or otherwise stop them from inflicting harm on you through a non-violent, non-harmful means. of course, running away is always an option of sorts. ...
unless you inflict any level of pain, pinning someone to the ground will not stop them if they are intent on doing you damage.
...cuts heal, bones heal, but morality can never be regained.
bones may heal, but they don't always heal 100% and can become permanent damange, how do you know when the level of permanent damage to you is inflicted? and if when that happens, do you then retaliate? could you retaliate? i know someone who hurt her wrist and now she can't twist it properly, she saw the doc and they said it's permanent. morality is in the eye of the beholder, if someone is threatening my family, i would feel it's my moral duty to prevent that by any means necessary, up to killing that person. I may feel sad because someone is dead, but morally speaking i think i could recover.

the 'woman being raped' scenario, then. if there are people about, a simple non-violent solution would be to yell for help, and then the helpers drag the rapist away...
non-violent for who? the person being raped? There would still be violence invovled in this situation, just not by the person being raped.
...this is one of the rare situations where i would say violence is ok - not excessive, but enough to be able to get away.
who has a right to say what is excessive? The person being raped may feel so compelled to defend herself that she feels she needs to kill the rapist to stop it from happening. in her mind, it's not excessive, but to someone else it may be.

but i utterly disagree that resorting to violence in self defense "elevates" you.
i agree too. i wouldn't say it's elevating to resort to violence, but neither would i say it's degrading.

unless you inflict any level of pain, pinning someone to the ground will not stop them if they are intent on doing you damage.
i don't know, many judo holds are pretty near painless and very effective. yes i know a little judo (used to be green or orange belt or something back in school)

bones may heal, but they don't always heal 100% and can become permanent damange, how do you know when the level of permanent damage to you is inflicted? and if when that happens, do you then retaliate? could you retaliate? i know someone who hurt her wrist and now she can't twist it properly, she saw the doc and they said it's permanent. morality is in the eye of the beholder, if someone is threatening my family, i would feel it's my moral duty to prevent that by any means necessary, up to killing that person. I may feel sad because someone is dead, but morally speaking i think i could recover.
i still wouldn't retaliate (i hope) even if the damage became permament, and, of course, you can't tell at what point this is. i only said i would be 'happy' if the damage is not permement, i said nothing about retaliation. and lets not forget, by the time damage inflicted becomes permement, the likleyhood of being able to retaliate is probably quite low.
morality is in the eye of the beholder. and the morality i have chosen means/makes me a pacifist. and as i said, i'm still undecided about an attack on my loved ones.

non-violent for who? the person being raped? There would still be violence invovled in this situation, just not by the person being raped.
non-violent defense, all around. on behalf of the woman and those who come to help.

who has a right to say what is excessive? The person being raped may feel so compelled to defend herself that she feels she needs to kill the rapist to stop it from happening. in her mind, it's not excessive, but to someone else it may be.
excessive enough to get away, as i said. if the woman can run for help, then thats enough. if she keeps beating or kicking the dude, its excessive.
and thats precisely the instincts that, as a pacifist, i try to suppress.

i would hope that others see the futility in violent actions (not just talking about the rape scenario now), but i have no authority to tell others what to do.


edit: we have sooo hijacked this thread :p

hehe, i feel like i'm talking to a person who follows the way of the leaf (read wheel of time).

o well, to each his own.

hehe, i feel like i'm talking to a person who follows the way of the leaf (read wheel of time).

o well, to each his own.
the way of the leaf?

i do smoke a lot of pot!:p

way of the leaf was a pacifist believe system to where they believed they should act like a leaf, it if falls from the tree, there's nothing you can do to stop it so you shouldn't resist to anything.

way of the leaf was a pacifist believe system to where they believed they should act like a leaf, it if falls from the tree, there's nothing you can do to stop it so you shouldn't resist to anything.
sounds pretty good to me.
who is the author of the book?

Robert Jordan

the first book is called The Eye of the World
2nd The Great Hunt
3rd Dragon Reborn
4th The Shadow Rising (i think that 2 and 3 are correct, may be reversed)
5th Fires of Heaven
6th Lords of Chaos
7th Crown of Swords
8th ....
9th Path of Daggers
10th (not out yet).... i may have skipped some, after lords of choas, the series starts to slow down some.

edit:

Main Sequence Novels
The Eye of the World
Book 1 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1990
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

The Great Hunt
Book 2 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

The Dragon Reborn
Book 3 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

The Shadow Rising
Book 4 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

The Fires of Heaven
Book 5 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

Lord of Chaos
Book 6 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

A Crown of Swords
Book 7 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

The Path of Daggers
Book 8 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 1992
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

Winter's Heart
Book 9 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 2000
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

Crossroads of Twilight
Book 10 of The Wheel of Time - Originally published in 2002
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

Knife of Dreams
Book 11 of The Wheel of Time - To be published in 2005
More Info | Chapter Summaries | Buy it

[Untitled Book 12]
Book 12 of The Wheel of Time - Publishing time unknown
More info to come
ignore the "originally published" dates :P those aren't true.
found on dragonmount.com

Robert Jordan

the first book is called The Eye of the World
2nd The Great Hunt
3rd Dragon Reborn
4th The Shadow Rising (i think that 2 and 3 are correct, may be reversed)
5th Fires of Heaven
6th Lords of Chaos
7th Crown of Swords
8th ....
9th Path of Daggers
10th (not out yet).... i may have skipped some, after lords of choas, the series starts to slow down some.
wow, quite a series... i'll have to keep it in mind, but i do have 5 books on my 'to be read' list already...
cheers:)