Page 1 of 1
The Rights & Wrongs of Revenge Debate...
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:27 pm
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
There is a bit of light debate going on over on another thread. It has evolved out of recent events on this community but has nothing to do with the original message which was about the Farepak Hampers company letting all of their customers down. To get to that thread and catch up with how this debate evolved, please
click here.
So, I have opened this thread with an aim to continuing the debate that has evolved which for now appears to be exploring 'revenge', its definition and whether it is right or wrong...
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:33 pm
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
spacecadet wrote:You have to remember what you are trying to achieve when extracting revenge as it is an ugly thing to be slave to. A scorched earth policy is fine if it's 1812. And you're Russian. And the French are coming. But it's a shite way to live your life in the 21st century.
Agreed, but wouldn't it be safe to say that if there is a battle or a war and people are being assaulted or injured in any manner, then they have a right to keep deterents in place to avoid further pain or loss? Self defence is instinctive.
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:24 pm
by spacecadet
The battle analogy is a good one Lugh. I'll stick with that.
As sentient beings we should be able to step backwards from animal instincts and see that all conflicts can be considered, not only in the tactical sphere but also in the strategic. One can win the fight in front of you but at what cost? Also you can win a fight but be left paying a higher cost than the loser. You have to keep sight of the long term and stay focused.
As a younger man I could start a fight in an empty room over the merest slight. It takes its toll.
I suppose I'm saying that you have look at yourself and estimate the personal cost of everything you do and I suppose its having my children that makes me think like that. Thats why I will exact revenge on the spur of the moment via harsh words or worse, but the long drawn out vendetta? F*** it. I've got other things to do with my time.
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:24 pm
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
spacecadet wrote:The battle analogy is a good one Lugh. I'll stick with that.
As sentient beings we should be able to step backwards from animal instincts and see that all conflicts can be considered, not only in the tactical sphere but also in the strategic. One can win the fight in front of you but at what cost? Also you can win a fight but be left paying a higher cost than the loser. You have to keep sight of the long term and stay focused.
Dave dude, I'm not a fighter, suprising as that may sound to you, because I'm frequently in conflict with people who have set about either damaging me or my work. All I use are my creative skills, mostly words, as my only means of defence.
Take that situation recently for example and how I have had business opportunities ruined by a group of extremely nasty people posing as a writer's learning community. They have maintained control over some of my work and basically treated me like a fool any time I have asked them what they think their game is.
They never offer explanations but continue their manipulations and nastiness, to the point where they threaten legal or alternative actions against me or my work. This is despite tonnes of evidence that if made public, would completely ruin them. They have grown comfortable in their assumptions they cannot be opposed. All I've decided to do is employ their tactics on them. I can assure you now, it causes me no lack of sleep or stress and if anything it insures peace-of-mind. Like I said earlier, it's a deterent only.
If I had done nothing and allowed them to continue to trample me into the dirt, then I would have lost sleep and been stressed. I know this from previous experiences with some of these people. It nearly killed me mate.
spacecadet wrote:As a younger man I could start a fight in an empty room over the merest slight. It takes its toll.
We all could. Hormones combined with a fear of being caught up in some wanky government's fight, tend to make everyone angry. Feeling trapped does it too... It's all deliberate, generation to generation and would appear to be part of the human psyche.
spacecadet wrote:I suppose I'm saying that you have look at yourself and estimate the personal cost of everything you do and I suppose its having my children that makes me think like that. Thats why I will exact revenge on the spur of the moment via harsh words or worse, but the long drawn out vendetta? F*** it. I've got other things to do with my time.
Fair points Dave but, and I don't want to come across as a smartarse, you spoke differently on the;
Death Penalty debate. You were of the opinion then that it was ok to take direct action into our own hands. To be honest, I find that a bit confusing mate.
One thing more to say for now and it's this. What appears like a vendetta to the outsider, may only be a show-of-strength or caution aiming to prevent further conflict with an old 'enemy' or 'threat'. I don't see this as a bad thing. To be honest, in the world we're living nowadays, everyone is wearing a front, defending themselves and now more than ever, worrying about their future.
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:39 pm
by spacecadet
The death penalty things different. I've twisted the necks of Mixy infected rabbits before. That ain't revenge, it's humanity. Same deal with the terminally evil.
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:25 am
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
spacecadet wrote:The death penalty things different. I've twisted the necks of Mixy infected rabbits before. That ain't revenge, it's humanity. Same deal with the terminally evil.
Ah. Now we're into what is deemed to be 'good' and what is deemed 'evil'... There's always going to be problems with this. How can the complexities of humanity be so effectively labelled either good or evil? Who decides what is what?
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:52 am
by Catherine Edmunds
It's not about good and evil, it's about cause and effect. You hit me; I can hit you back (revenge) which is almost certain to cause you to hit me harder (ouch) OR I can turn the other cheek and move on and everyone benefits.
It took me a while to realise this, human nature being what it is.
I'm not a Christian, but when Jesus said 'love one another' he had the right idea, unquestionably. Hate is destructive; more to the hater than the hated. Love is positive, and helps all.
Someone hurts me, I'd sooner give them a hug than a slap. That way everyone starts to heal.
Of course, it's not usually that easy. Many of you have seen me lose my temper with people. I'm aware that I can become quite vicious in my desire for retribution. Luckily, these days, I tend to come to my senses pretty quickly before any harm is done.
Revenge is always wrong.
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:37 am
by spacecadet
Lugh wrote:How can the complexities of humanity be so effectively labelled either good or evil? Who decides what is what?
"Me"
Now look in the mirror and repeat that.
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:45 pm
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
delph_ambi wrote:It's not about good and evil, it's about cause and effect. You hit me; I can hit you back (revenge) which is almost certain to cause you to hit me harder (ouch) OR I can turn the other cheek and move on and everyone benefits.
It took me a while to realise this, human nature being what it is.
I'm not a Christian, but when Jesus said 'love one another' he had the right idea, unquestionably. Hate is destructive; more to the hater than the hated. Love is positive, and helps all.
The Christ wasn't the only exponent of love Delph. I sometimes wish less emphasis was based on his life message which has become tainted by right-wing extremists with hate agendas and outrageous phobia. If we all focused more on other human beings who have taught the same or led by example, then maybe we would not feel a need for revenge. I know I passed a throwaway comment about Gandhi the other day, but he too conveyed notions of oneness and how hurting others only led to hurt of oneself.
I believe my point about deterents is still valid. There are not that many people out there who will assume an adversary if there is a display of strength. It is both an animal and human trait. Even Christ and Gandhi had a tribe of followers who would have appeared like an army in the eyes of anyone opposed to them.
Strength or the conveying of it in actions or signals is a safety feature all of us have. It's why animals are coloured differently to convey messages like; 'don't eat me, I'm poisonous' or 'don't attack me, I sting'. Every living thing on the planet survives and indeed excels if it feels safe, isn't prey and is allowed to flourish.
Humans develop better in safe environments, although the late Suzi Pritchard once wrote in an email or on Dome 2, saying war was good because people advanced technologically during conflict and learned more about medical practice through war. She was wrong.
delph_ambi wrote:Someone hurts me, I'd sooner give them a hug than a slap. That way everyone starts to heal.
Yes, but is it always practical? If you knew that someone was doing harm to others, wouldn't your need to protect, therefore love, come into effect? I know that if I saw someone deliberately hurting another, I could not stand by and do nothing. I would have to intervene. Isn't that defensive action an act of love and an effort to protect the larger group?
delph_ambi wrote:Of course, it's not usually that easy. Many of you have seen me lose my temper with people. I'm aware that I can become quite vicious in my desire for retribution. Luckily, these days, I tend to come to my senses pretty quickly before any harm is done.
Revenge is always wrong.
I used to practice Tai chi (Lifeforce) exercises when I was more fully emmersed in performance work and before my injuries started to plague me. It kept the mind clear and boosted my energy levels.
One of the wisest observations I ever heard from my Tai chi guide was;
"if an anger outburst lasted more than 15 seconds, it was old anger."
When I asked her to explain this she said that the body and mind stored every emotional awareness we have ever had. We literally cannot forget. If emotions (including anger) are unresolved, then they come through in our everyday lives.
It took me a while to fully grasp this and for the most part I do try to remember. Sometimes I don't and I allow old insults and pains to surface. I think accepting that this happens and learning from it, is a lifelong lesson that needs frequent refresher courses. I still believe that it is pointless to attempt to destroy something another has created, because it always backfires on the damaging party. I also still hold that self-defence is natural...
-----------
spacecadet wrote:Lugh wrote:How can the complexities of humanity be so effectively labelled either good or evil? Who decides what is what?
"Me"
Now look in the mirror and repeat that.
Very cool Dave. Zen-like thinking 
...
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:19 pm
by spacecadet
Wax on, wax off, Lugh-san.
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:28 pm
by Louis P. Burns aka Lugh
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:45 am
by spacecadet
I like the Tai-Chi fifteen second rule - it sums it all up rather nicely.
Anger is an instant hit of adrenaline which can aid survival and immediate needs. I'm all for the personal freedom of intense localised violence to keep oneself and ones loved ones safe.
Also, remember the days when if you really had a bad fall out with a neighbour or someone who drank in your pub then it was solved by some fisticuffs which usually ended with a couple of local big guys dragging you apart by your hair while a common woman with no tights on would shout "Leave it, he ain't werf it Barry!" repeatedly?
I spoke to a copper about this when I was having problems with the guy around the corner - he'd had a slanging match with my wife in the street, something which would have been a broken nose offence ten years ago. The copper agreed that ten years ago if I had done that to him they wouldn't have bothered about it but nowadays they'd have to charge me. Afore-mentioned copper said the old days of fisticuffs was much more peaceful as now people couldn't do that they just let things build up until eventually someone would go round with a carving knife, gun or a can of petrol.
As for pub fights I was in them or on the fringes of them every week. I remember many times either standing victorious with my mates or running away bruised but still laughing, only to pick small pieces of glass from my head when I got home. Noone really seemed to get hurt beyond bruises and general abrasions. Now you don't see many pub fights but the ones you do see end up in broken heads and stabbings.
Bring back casual violence and let's make the world a safer place to be.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:46 am
by upstate
spacecadet wrote:
Bring back casual violence and let's make the world a safer place to be.
Casual violence is all very well, but George W. Bush and Tony Blair don't drink in my local pub. Inconsiderate gobshites the two of em...
... 