Yeah, I can assure you, returning good for evil done is far from a fairy tale or movie, and a slap in the face to all the people that have given their lives for its cause and its potential.
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap. The tickle of love or hate in the world both begins and ends with the individual.
You say that as if this is a retaliation, then peace, then retaliation.
United Healthcare murdered people for profit yesterday. They are today. They will tomorrow. This is an active attack. An active slaughter is upon the people, though the owners just call it business, whether we would fight back or not.
Don’t confuse quiet for peace. We haven’t had peace here in decades.
I’m well aware. The problem here in this circumstance is that you’re assuming by choosing to eliminate the one, that it will save the majority. The variable asbcent in that circumstance is the fact that it doesn’t matter how many CEO’s you kill, how many of what you—based off the standards that have been taught to you—consider the worst of the world you eliminate or lock up, there will always be just as much evil and selfishness to replace the evil you eliminate via the same such means.
Evil, hate and selfishness are an ignorance—a lack of knowledge, but of the true value of virtue; being abscent the other side of it, etc. This is what warrants any amount of it to any degree infinite forgiveness. Because it’s a blindness, all lack of knowledge; you don’t until you know. This would of course include the true value of virtue. We wouldn’t hate a blind person for walking into things and making mistakes that are a result of them abscent the ability to see all together. This is what any amount of lack of knowledge—ignorance is: a blindness. So at the core of all this is a knowledge that needs teaching, and people aren’t going to want to hear logic and reason (love) if you’re screaming at them, or insulting them, threatening them etc.
The moment we hate and murder like them is the moment we become them.
I would say such a view means you couldn’t love your own children, not being willing to fight those that would, given the opportunity, take money for your child’s care, then deny that care when they needed it to live.
That’s like a cow knowing their child is about to get the piston to their skull and telling their child to love the pistoner with grace. Very Jesus-y, but an awful parent.
It’s a delicate point of view in general ill admit, in this situation specifically I would do all I can do to defend. I absolutely wouldn’t go and assassinate some guy that if any of us were in his shoes, with how he came out biologically and the contemporaries and their influence all their life, would be doing the exact same thing he was lead to think as right, true and just. It’s what’s called: “taking oaths” I guess. Convincing yourself that all you know now is not only all that’s worth knowing, but is no longer up for question, and that would then therefore lead you into any harm, hate or iniquity to any degree; the influence of our contemporaries or peers are a massive wieght in the “oaths” we take, so to speak, hence racism.
We’re all just as vulnerable to becoming what we presently consider as the worst of the world, we’ve just been lucky enough to be abscent the variables and influences that make them so.
You can walk the path of MLK jr. and another can walk the path of Malcolm X. Changes as massive as the ones we’re seeking often take multiple levers to maneuver into effect.
Yep, MLK’s carrot would never have succeeded without the stick of Malcom X as a threat.
Even then, MLK was stopped from spreading his message of economic equity and socialism, which was tragically extinguished before a matching stick like movement for that was formed, by our government in order to prevent that problem explicitly.
The problem is however, amongst these two levers in particular, only one—ultimately, holds the potential of not only the least amount of lives lost, but the least amount of potential violence and the most potential for truly—again ultimately, reaching the day where at the very least violence is considered obsolete, and no longer necessary.
The other only offers more of the same; it isn’t anything new but more of what history teaches only creates even more of: hate. The only true remedy to what you or anyone considers as hate—in any given point in time—is love, even to the point of self-sacrifice. It’s being abscent the true woes of violence that lead most to so easily conclude responding to it with love as nonsense.
This is a salient point. Dethroning the ones in charge by the same means they use (hate, division, etc.) will put someone new on the throne. But using the same means, you’ve now established a rule of law that works in the way they like to look at the world - with hate. With retribution. It’s a cycle. It needs to be broken.
Dethroning the ones in charge by the same means they use (hate, division, etc.)
The insurance industry does not hate the people they kill. It’s cold and passionless; it’s simply business. And it was hardly divisive, just look at the surprising approval in polls. It really only divides the upper class abusing the masses from the masses themselves, a division which already existed.
This is not cyclic. Doing nothing was cyclic. This is the way out of the cycle of mass social murder. This isn’t some symmetrical dispute of vengeance between neighbors or factions, this is oppression by a minority ruling class of sociopaths. You don’t need to hate them to know they’re passionless mass murderers with legal approval.
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap.
Who retaliated on the Allies for winning WWII?
Did the world get worse when the war ended?
Did the Nazis stop of their own accord, or did someone have to fight them?
You’re pretending as if you’ve never heard of Popper’s paradox of tolerance or indeed understand that justifies self-defenses can’t exist.
If a 50kg woman was regularly raped and beaten by their 200kg muscly husband and never allowed to leave the house, would it be unreasonable for the woman to kill the man in his sleep? In this hypothetical she can not run or contact anyone for help.
She should be a peaceful individual and accept that it’s her responsibility to be non-violent so the world is a better place and to to keep just taking the beatings and the rapes?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.
9/11 has nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with punishing america for its military adventures in the Middle East where it hurt - the center of the financial system.
You sound young and naive and probably not around for the pre 9/11 world. In summary, bin Laden won.
I’m not saying they’re related I’m saying 9/11 would be an example of some of the woes that come with returning evil with evil. Like Japan learned unfortunately. Doesn’t mean however that it stopped anything in the future to happen as a result of it. That we more potentially gained a permanent enemy if anything.
Yeah, I can assure you, returning good for evil done is far from a fairy tale or movie, and a slap in the face to all the people that have given their lives for its cause and its potential.
We’ve always retaliated throughout history, and it only ever got us more and more retaliation; it only ever puts a reason to retaliate in someone’s lap. The tickle of love or hate in the world both begins and ends with the individual.
You say that as if this is a retaliation, then peace, then retaliation.
United Healthcare murdered people for profit yesterday. They are today. They will tomorrow. This is an active attack. An active slaughter is upon the people, though the owners just call it business, whether we would fight back or not.
Don’t confuse quiet for peace. We haven’t had peace here in decades.
No amount of murder justifies the murder of even one.
I’m not sure what you mean by the peace retaliation bit, can you explain?
Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
I’m well aware. The problem here in this circumstance is that you’re assuming by choosing to eliminate the one, that it will save the majority. The variable asbcent in that circumstance is the fact that it doesn’t matter how many CEO’s you kill, how many of what you—based off the standards that have been taught to you—consider the worst of the world you eliminate or lock up, there will always be just as much evil and selfishness to replace the evil you eliminate via the same such means.
Evil, hate and selfishness are an ignorance—a lack of knowledge, but of the true value of virtue; being abscent the other side of it, etc. This is what warrants any amount of it to any degree infinite forgiveness. Because it’s a blindness, all lack of knowledge; you don’t until you know. This would of course include the true value of virtue. We wouldn’t hate a blind person for walking into things and making mistakes that are a result of them abscent the ability to see all together. This is what any amount of lack of knowledge—ignorance is: a blindness. So at the core of all this is a knowledge that needs teaching, and people aren’t going to want to hear logic and reason (love) if you’re screaming at them, or insulting them, threatening them etc.
The moment we hate and murder like them is the moment we become them.
I would say such a view means you couldn’t love your own children, not being willing to fight those that would, given the opportunity, take money for your child’s care, then deny that care when they needed it to live.
That’s like a cow knowing their child is about to get the piston to their skull and telling their child to love the pistoner with grace. Very Jesus-y, but an awful parent.
It’s a delicate point of view in general ill admit, in this situation specifically I would do all I can do to defend. I absolutely wouldn’t go and assassinate some guy that if any of us were in his shoes, with how he came out biologically and the contemporaries and their influence all their life, would be doing the exact same thing he was lead to think as right, true and just. It’s what’s called: “taking oaths” I guess. Convincing yourself that all you know now is not only all that’s worth knowing, but is no longer up for question, and that would then therefore lead you into any harm, hate or iniquity to any degree; the influence of our contemporaries or peers are a massive wieght in the “oaths” we take, so to speak, hence racism.
We’re all just as vulnerable to becoming what we presently consider as the worst of the world, we’ve just been lucky enough to be abscent the variables and influences that make them so.
You can walk the path of MLK jr. and another can walk the path of Malcolm X. Changes as massive as the ones we’re seeking often take multiple levers to maneuver into effect.
Yep, MLK’s carrot would never have succeeded without the stick of Malcom X as a threat.
Even then, MLK was stopped from spreading his message of economic equity and socialism, which was tragically extinguished before a matching stick like movement for that was formed, by our government in order to prevent that problem explicitly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Jowers_trial
The problem is however, amongst these two levers in particular, only one—ultimately, holds the potential of not only the least amount of lives lost, but the least amount of potential violence and the most potential for truly—again ultimately, reaching the day where at the very least violence is considered obsolete, and no longer necessary.
The other only offers more of the same; it isn’t anything new but more of what history teaches only creates even more of: hate. The only true remedy to what you or anyone considers as hate—in any given point in time—is love, even to the point of self-sacrifice. It’s being abscent the true woes of violence that lead most to so easily conclude responding to it with love as nonsense.
Removed by mod
My apologies, please forgive me. Good day to you and happy new year my friend.
This is a salient point. Dethroning the ones in charge by the same means they use (hate, division, etc.) will put someone new on the throne. But using the same means, you’ve now established a rule of law that works in the way they like to look at the world - with hate. With retribution. It’s a cycle. It needs to be broken.
The insurance industry does not hate the people they kill. It’s cold and passionless; it’s simply business. And it was hardly divisive, just look at the surprising approval in polls. It really only divides the upper class abusing the masses from the masses themselves, a division which already existed.
This is not cyclic. Doing nothing was cyclic. This is the way out of the cycle of mass social murder. This isn’t some symmetrical dispute of vengeance between neighbors or factions, this is oppression by a minority ruling class of sociopaths. You don’t need to hate them to know they’re passionless mass murderers with legal approval.
Appreciate this comment well said my friend, refreshing to hear.
Who retaliated on the Allies for winning WWII?
Did the world get worse when the war ended?
Did the Nazis stop of their own accord, or did someone have to fight them?
You’re pretending as if you’ve never heard of Popper’s paradox of tolerance or indeed understand that justifies self-defenses can’t exist.
If a 50kg woman was regularly raped and beaten by their 200kg muscly husband and never allowed to leave the house, would it be unreasonable for the woman to kill the man in his sleep? In this hypothetical she can not run or contact anyone for help.
She should be a peaceful individual and accept that it’s her responsibility to be non-violent so the world is a better place and to to keep just taking the beatings and the rapes?
We have yet to see. 9/11 ring any bells?
What does that have to do with the relevance of returning the evil of that war with good?
This still doesn’t prove the irrelevance of it becasue who can say what else would’ve happened if evils to this degree were met with equal parts good?
I thought we were talking about war here? More specifically even murdering a CEO as a matter of fact. Of course that person should be trying to escape, people have a tendency of not looking at this idea reasonably, and especially to ge off topic and use these specific situations where of course we should be using any means necessary to get ourselves out in that situation. I didn’t realize world peace rested on this women trying to change the mind of this one serial killer apparently, I’m assuming.
9/11 has nothing to do with WW2 and everything to do with punishing america for its military adventures in the Middle East where it hurt - the center of the financial system.
You sound young and naive and probably not around for the pre 9/11 world. In summary, bin Laden won.
I’m not saying they’re related I’m saying 9/11 would be an example of some of the woes that come with returning evil with evil. Like Japan learned unfortunately. Doesn’t mean however that it stopped anything in the future to happen as a result of it. That we more potentially gained a permanent enemy if anything.
deleted by creator
In what world is a 50kg woman obese??
I even put cereal killer instead of serial lmao
Lol you’re right I think over exaggerated the numbers in my mind for some reason, disregard that.