Overcome the angry

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Overcome the angry

Post #1

Post by FinalEnigma »

A member posted the following in another thread, and I wanted to discuss it.
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the lair by truth."

and:

"Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."

I like these because they plainly show how to make the world a better place by practicing kind acts, honesty and compassion. But we clearly see in our world that people tend to repay anger and hatred with more anger and hatred. While that gives them a temporary sense of sanctification, it promotes a cycle of anger and hatred and only makes the world worse off in the long run. If we stop and think before we act, we can realize that if we humble ourselves and resist the urge to fight back, we can return unkind acts with kindness, and we'll never go wrong. The world will either get a little better or stay the same. But it will never get worse by our actions.
(bold added by me)

The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.

There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.

with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.

Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.

Question for debate: Can kindness and not fighting back succeed in all situations? why or why not?
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

You have come to similar conclusions to myself on this issue. The whole "bless those that curse you" command in the bible is a lovely sentiment, but one of the pieces of advice which is completely unrealistic. It works with reasonable people, but not with unreasonable ones eg, Bullies.

As a child I was taught to put this biblical advice into action and I did. I remember it working well a few times, but it also provided some real heartbreak too. It made me a doormat for bullies. I only wish I'd learnt this back then.

I now look back on those times and it shows me one example of how the bible is clearly not God's word, but the wishful thinking of some religious leader who lived in a religious bubble and had unrealistic views of the world.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
TXatheist
Site Supporter
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:11 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #3

Post by TXatheist »

FinalEnigma wrote:Question for debate: Can kindness and not fighting back succeed in all situations? why or why not?
It depends on what you mean by "succeed". If my definition of success is for all of my actions to either have a neutral or positive affect on the world in all situations, then I will have succeeded. But if you define "succeed" as "solve the problem", then no, you will not always succeed because you are measuring your success by the reactions of others. Some will see kindness and learn from it, and others will ignore it.
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com

"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Post #4

Post by FinalEnigma »

shortly before world war two, a strategy of appeasement had catastrophic effects.
Most Conservative politicians were in favor of appeasement, though Churchill said their supporters were divided.[9] The Labour Party opposed the Fascist dictators on principle but did not want war, so it also tended to support appeasement. As Chamberlain left for Munich the whole House of Commons cheered him noisily. Churchill was unusual in believing that Germany menaced freedom and democracy and should be resisted over Czechoslovakia. A week before Munich he warned, "The partition of Czechoslovakia under pressure from England and France amounts to the complete surrender of the Western Democracies to the Nazi threat of force. Such a collapse will bring peace or security neither England nor to France."
(wikipedia)

if you continuously employ a strategy of non-aggression and appeasement toward certain individuals, their desires will not be sated, but only increased, and a murderous dictator, for example, cannot be appeased. attempting to do so will only enable him to oppress even more people than he already is. Friendship and appeasement only works if the ultimate goal of the aggressor is something that you are willing to give.

If the bully really only wants your lunch money, then fine. If he wants to feel powerful by dominating other people, you would just be feeding him(pun not intended).
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
TXatheist
Site Supporter
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:11 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #5

Post by TXatheist »

FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
FinalEnigma wrote:There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.
The trick is to realize the underlying problem and attempt to mend it. I admit that I see no problem in learning a form of self defense as well, as long as it is used exclusively for self defense. That means dodging, using the attacker's own weight/momentum against him, etc not beating him to a pulp before he gets the chance to do so to you.
FinalEnigma wrote:with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.
Treating him with kindness does not have to result in him becoming your friend. He may simply learn that his bullying you is not going to work like it does on other kids. In some cases, rare though they may be, he may begin to feel badly about it. It can happen.
FinalEnigma wrote:Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.
Just what exactly is the goal? To simply get him to quit or to be a good example and influence on him and those who are witness? What if you could accomplish both rather than beating him up and simply continuing the cycle of violence?

I believe that no good comes from violence whether it is being initiated or returned. Of course, if we are talking about war, we have the right to defend ourselves from destruction and death. The rules have to change when on a global scale. You cannot get drafted into the military and then sit down on the ground and set your gun aside while the enemy runs you over. By defending your country, you bring peace to the citizens that otherwise would be killed. But we as citizens can set examples for others and maybe even break the cycle of violence now and then. I think the reward for doing so in a non violent manner is greater than the reward of seeing the bloody bully on the ground and thinking "he won't mess with me anymore".
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com

"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire

User avatar
TXatheist
Site Supporter
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:11 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post #6

Post by TXatheist »

OnceConvinced wrote:As a child I was taught to put this biblical advice into action and I did. I remember it working well a few times, but it also provided some real heartbreak too. It made me a doormat for bullies. I only wish I'd learnt this back then.
If it worked well a few times, you may have influenced those kids' lives for the better. It is actually possible that one of those people is a better person today having seen your example. And the heartbreak you experienced was because you let their tormenting get to you. I don't mean to be callous when I say that, I know that it is tough on kids. This is a much easier concept for adults to handle as they are better equipped. I have all the sympathy in the world for kids who get bullied, as I dealt with my fair share of bullies growing up.

The fact is, if you fight back, you have 0% chance of changing or helping the bully. You may stop them from bullying you, you may even stop them from bullying others, but are they a better person for having been beaten up? I would think not. If you treat them all with kindness and compassion, and only one of them notices and changes for the better, look at all the good you have done for that one person. Is it not worth it to stay true to yourself, knowing you have never promoted violence, and to have helped someone else change for the better?
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com

"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #7

Post by FinalEnigma »

Seijun wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
FinalEnigma wrote:There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.
The trick is to realize the underlying problem and attempt to mend it. I admit that I see no problem in learning a form of self defense as well, as long as it is used exclusively for self defense. That means dodging, using the attacker's own weight/momentum against him, etc not beating him to a pulp before he gets the chance to do so to you.
FinalEnigma wrote:with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.
Treating him with kindness does not have to result in him becoming your friend. He may simply learn that his bullying you is not going to work like it does on other kids. In some cases, rare though they may be, he may begin to feel badly about it. It can happen.
I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I misstated. I don't mean that your approach is always wrong, I just mean that the trick is to know when it will work and when it won't, and use it when it works, and when it won't, take a different course of action.
FinalEnigma wrote:Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.
Just what exactly is the goal? To simply get him to quit or to be a good example and influence on him and those who are witness? What if you could accomplish both rather than beating him up and simply continuing the cycle of violence?
You are jumping awful hard on the beating up choice. note that was only one of four courses of action I mentioned.

regarding the goal, the initial goal is, of course, to get him to stop bullying you. I've come to the realization that one must take care of oneself before one can care for others. I don't mean a self-first, I take-care-of-me thing, I'm not that cynical, what I mean is this:
I, for about a year, was planning on becoming a doctor. perhaps going into medical research. this could potentially help thousands or even millions of people. That sounds great to me, and I felt really good about it. but then I realized that if I did choose to follow that career path, I would be miserable, and would never be able to help anybody. So now I am choosing to do what will make me happy, and from that I will do what I can to help others. I will do far more good on this career path, following my own desires, that I ever would have as a doctor.

my point is this - if I let the bully, or whatever aggressor, negatively impact me, then he is negatively impacting all the people I could be helping if I weren't worrying about him. So yes, the first goal is to stop the aggressor. If I can benefit others than myself in the process, that is obviously the better choice.

so if I can make friends with this guy, and end all the violence, and change his life, then yeah, I'll do that. But if I can't, I'll use another method.
I believe that no good comes from violence whether it is being initiated or returned.
You are quite sure? no good ever comes from violence(excluding self defense of course)?

By defending your country, you bring peace to the citizens that otherwise would be killed.
Ah ha! so violence is acceptable to defend others?

but is it not acceptable for yourself?
But we as citizens can set examples for others and maybe even break the cycle of violence now and then. I think the reward for doing so in a non violent manner is greater than the reward of seeing the bloody bully on the ground and thinking "he won't mess with me anymore".
Oh I quite agree with you. I would far prefer to turn somebody away from a violent path than kill him before he can start it, but you can't always turn someone. Sometimes, you have to make the less moral choice, because it's more moral to do so.

I love apparent contradictions like that. In case it's confusing let me give an example:

You are a brilliant general who is defending a small nation against it's aggressive and more powerful neighbor with a habit of pillaging and raping, but you are captured in a large battle. One of your soldiers infiltrates the enemy camp and finds you, and offers to take your place in the execution the next morning, as he looks very much like you. If you both try to escape, the enemy will catch you both, because you are too deep in his land, and could not possibly reach safety before he caught you. You know that, with the knowledge you've gained while inside the enemy camp, that you could defeat them if given the chance.

So do you do the immoral, cowardly thing and let him take your place?

or do you do the even more immoral thing and nobly sacrifice yourself, ensuring the soldiers survival, but also ensuring the destruction of your country and the slaughter of your people's women and children?

you have to let him take your place. You have to do the cowardly and immoral thing and use this soldiers life as a game piece to save yours, so that you can do the moral thing and save your country.
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
TXatheist
Site Supporter
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:11 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #8

Post by TXatheist »

FinalEnigma wrote:
Seijun wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
FinalEnigma wrote:There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.
The trick is to realize the underlying problem and attempt to mend it. I admit that I see no problem in learning a form of self defense as well, as long as it is used exclusively for self defense. That means dodging, using the attacker's own weight/momentum against him, etc not beating him to a pulp before he gets the chance to do so to you.
FinalEnigma wrote:with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.
Treating him with kindness does not have to result in him becoming your friend. He may simply learn that his bullying you is not going to work like it does on other kids. In some cases, rare though they may be, he may begin to feel badly about it. It can happen.
FinalEnigma wrote:I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I misstated. I don't mean that your approach is always wrong, I just mean that the trick is to know when it will work and when it won't, and use it when it works, and when it won't, take a different course of action.
How can you ever be sure that it will not work? The power of kindness to those that do not expect it can surprise you. What if you have returned a bully's harsh treatment with kindness and compassion for a week and you finally give up, not realizing that you have sparked an internal conflict in him about how he has been treating you? The next day you change schools, thereby abandoning him, or you tell on him, thereby betraying him, or you fight back, thereby affirming that violence is acceptable even to you. Or you could continue on, showing him that kindness and compassion is not defeated by anger or violence.
FinalEnigma wrote:Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.
Just what exactly is the goal? To simply get him to quit or to be a good example and influence on him and those who are witness? What if you could accomplish both rather than beating him up and simply continuing the cycle of violence?
FinalEnigma wrote:You are jumping awful hard on the beating up choice. note that was only one of four courses of action I mentioned.
You are right, I did concentrate on the "fighting" alternative more than the others. My thoughts on the other alternatives are these...

If one's safety/health is truly in danger, then I find it perfectly acceptable, even advisable, to ask an adult to intervene. No child should sacrifice his/her own safety or health. If the risk is a schoolyard scuffle that is only a possibility (meaning in the particular case, the child may be able to reason with the bully and get through to him/her), it should be up to the child, and I would never fault him/her for going for help. I would never consider it cowardice. As I said before, these ideals are much more suited for adults, not innocent, inexperienced children. While I do not condone fighting back, I certainly do not condone a child sacrificing his/her safety or health. The "exodus" alternative, I think, would be very rare, as the situation should ultimately be handled by the adults if it cannot be resolved otherwise.
FinalEnigma wrote:regarding the goal, the initial goal is, of course, to get him to stop bullying you.
Again, the issue between adults and children is different. It is perfectly understandable and expected that a child's goal is to get the bully to leave them alone. I would not blame them in the least. But as an adult, my initial goal would be to help the person antagonizing me to see the err of his ways and to show him what he is missing out on by being a bully to those around him. I can put up a mental shield and accept all the abuse he can dish out (assuming it is not physical and he isn't beating me to a pulp). If he is attempting to physically abuse me, then I would take the proper measures to ensure my safety. But if he is simply verbally abusive, I can take that all day long with a smile and then wish him a pleasant day, even ask him if there is anything I can do for him.
FinalEnigma wrote:I've come to the realization that one must take care of oneself before one can care for others.
I fully agree with you there. You must draw the line with sacrifice to be sure that you have something to give.
FinalEnigma wrote:I don't mean a self-first, I take-care-of-me thing, I'm not that cynical, what I mean is this:
I, for about a year, was planning on becoming a doctor. perhaps going into medical research. this could potentially help thousands or even millions of people. That sounds great to me, and I felt really good about it. but then I realized that if I did choose to follow that career path, I would be miserable, and would never be able to help anybody. So now I am choosing to do what will make me happy, and from that I will do what I can to help others. I will do far more good on this career path, following my own desires, that I ever would have as a doctor.
Then you have chosen the correct path, in my humble opinion. You are no good to anyone else if you are not good to yourself first. Following the path that you feel is right for you will make you happy and give you the strength, energy and will that you need to help others. If you are unhappy with your life, you will be depressed, drained, and no good to anyone including yourself. There will be others who know that they are called to do the research that you considered, and they will be happy and productive in their decision. And you will be successful in an area that they may have considered and yet abandoned for the same reasons you abandoned their field. Follow your heart and you cannot go wrong.
FinalEnigma wrote:my point is this - if I let the bully, or whatever aggressor, negatively impact me, then he is negatively impacting all the people I could be helping if I weren't worrying about him. So yes, the first goal is to stop the aggressor. If I can benefit others than myself in the process, that is obviously the better choice.
But what does it mean to "let" the bully/aggressor negatively impact you? Could he tease, berate, and ridicule you and you not let it impact you? Or must you be affected and retaliate?
FinalEnigma wrote:so if I can make friends with this guy, and end all the violence, and change his life, then yeah, I'll do that. But if I can't, I'll use another method.
I am truly glad to hear that. There are some that are blind to that option.
FinalEnigma wrote:
I believe that no good comes from violence whether it is being initiated or returned.
You are quite sure? no good ever comes from violence(excluding self defense of course)?
FinalEnigma wrote:
By defending your country, you bring peace to the citizens that otherwise would be killed.
Ah ha! so violence is acceptable to defend others?

but is it not acceptable for yourself?
I saw that one coming as I typed my post :) and it is a perfectly good point. Honestly, and I do hope you will not take this as a cop-out, I am very young in my walk with Buddhism as I only decided to follow it about a week or so ago. I have yet to delve deeply into it and get enlightened on all the teachings. At this point, I am really not sure what to make of the morality of war, if there is such a thing. When confronting a bully, we only have ourselves to worry about. But it is more complicated when we are asked to defend millions of people. I feel that I am going to have to learn more before I can argue intelligently on this particular aspect. But my post does represent my current feelings that one should refrain from violence unless it is for the greater good of millions. As I learn more about the Buddha's teachings, I may change my feelings. And if I do, I will be sure to let you know. ;)
FinalEnigma wrote:
But we as citizens can set examples for others and maybe even break the cycle of violence now and then. I think the reward for doing so in a non violent manner is greater than the reward of seeing the bloody bully on the ground and thinking "he won't mess with me anymore".
Oh I quite agree with you. I would far prefer to turn somebody away from a violent path than kill him before he can start it, but you can't always turn someone. Sometimes, you have to make the less moral choice, because it's more moral to do so.

I love apparent contradictions like that. In case it's confusing let me give an example:

You are a brilliant general who is defending a small nation against it's aggressive and more powerful neighbor with a habit of pillaging and raping, but you are captured in a large battle. One of your soldiers infiltrates the enemy camp and finds you, and offers to take your place in the execution the next morning, as he looks very much like you. If you both try to escape, the enemy will catch you both, because you are too deep in his land, and could not possibly reach safety before he caught you. You know that, with the knowledge you've gained while inside the enemy camp, that you could defeat them if given the chance.

So do you do the immoral, cowardly thing and let him take your place?

or do you do the even more immoral thing and nobly sacrifice yourself, ensuring the soldiers survival, but also ensuring the destruction of your country and the slaughter of your people's women and children?

you have to let him take your place. You have to do the cowardly and immoral thing and use this soldiers life as a game piece to save yours, so that you can do the moral thing and save your country.
I would not force him to die for me. He knows the situation, and if he is a good soldier with our country's best interest in mind, then he would be willing to die for the greater good. I believe that I would be willing to do so if I were in his place. You might say, "that's easy for you to say, you don't have to". But honestly, if I were there and I knew that I could save a nation, what better way to die? Should I die saving a nation or die in a nursing home watching reruns of Gilligan's Island? I would be honored to do the former.

It would not be immoral or cowardly to let a man accept the choice of giving his life so that millions may live. To go and die yourself and let your country fall would be the immoral, not to mention irresponsible, thing to do. I can only imagine that pride would be one's motive in that decision.
The Texas Atheist: http://www.txatheist.com
Anti-Theism Art: http://anti-theists.deviantart.com

"Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people." ~ Voltaire

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #9

Post by FinalEnigma »

Seijun wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:
Seijun wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
FinalEnigma wrote:There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.
The trick is to realize the underlying problem and attempt to mend it. I admit that I see no problem in learning a form of self defense as well, as long as it is used exclusively for self defense. That means dodging, using the attacker's own weight/momentum against him, etc not beating him to a pulp before he gets the chance to do so to you.
FinalEnigma wrote:with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.
Treating him with kindness does not have to result in him becoming your friend. He may simply learn that his bullying you is not going to work like it does on other kids. In some cases, rare though they may be, he may begin to feel badly about it. It can happen.
FinalEnigma wrote:I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I misstated. I don't mean that your approach is always wrong, I just mean that the trick is to know when it will work and when it won't, and use it when it works, and when it won't, take a different course of action.
How can you ever be sure that it will not work? The power of kindness to those that do not expect it can surprise you. What if you have returned a bully's harsh treatment with kindness and compassion for a week and you finally give up, not realizing that you have sparked an internal conflict in him about how he has been treating you? The next day you change schools, thereby abandoning him, or you tell on him, thereby betraying him, or you fight back, thereby affirming that violence is acceptable even to you. Or you could continue on, showing him that kindness and compassion is not defeated by anger or violence.
Generally no, you can't know that it will not work, but sometimes, yes, you can. an extreme example would be a psychopath or sociopath. Unfortunately, kindness will not change them
FinalEnigma wrote:Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.
Just what exactly is the goal? To simply get him to quit or to be a good example and influence on him and those who are witness? What if you could accomplish both rather than beating him up and simply continuing the cycle of violence?
FinalEnigma wrote:You are jumping awful hard on the beating up choice. note that was only one of four courses of action I mentioned.
You are right, I did concentrate on the "fighting" alternative more than the others. My thoughts on the other alternatives are these...

If one's safety/health is truly in danger, then I find it perfectly acceptable, even advisable, to ask an adult to intervene. No child should sacrifice his/her own safety or health. If the risk is a schoolyard scuffle that is only a possibility (meaning in the particular case, the child may be able to reason with the bully and get through to him/her), it should be up to the child, and I would never fault him/her for going for help. I would never consider it cowardice. As I said before, these ideals are much more suited for adults, not innocent, inexperienced children. While I do not condone fighting back, I certainly do not condone a child sacrificing his/her safety or health. The "exodus" alternative, I think, would be very rare, as the situation should ultimately be handled by the adults if it cannot be resolved otherwise.
Of course, I pretty much agree with what was said here. Although I suspect we are getting too enmeshed into the bully example.
FinalEnigma wrote:regarding the goal, the initial goal is, of course, to get him to stop bullying you.
Again, the issue between adults and children is different. It is perfectly understandable and expected that a child's goal is to get the bully to leave them alone. I would not blame them in the least. But as an adult, my initial goal would be to help the person antagonizing me to see the err of his ways and to show him what he is missing out on by being a bully to those around him. I can put up a mental shield and accept all the abuse he can dish out (assuming it is not physical and he isn't beating me to a pulp). If he is attempting to physically abuse me, then I would take the proper measures to ensure my safety. But if he is simply verbally abusive, I can take that all day long with a smile and then wish him a pleasant day, even ask him if there is anything I can do for him.
Yes, and if you can do this, then great. But there are times when it isn't so easy. I'm still young at 22. maybe you are older and I just don't have the experience that you do, or maybe its just more difficult for me to completely disregard the actions of another person, but there is a person in my life who has been negatively affecting me for quite some time now, and kindness is not going to change it. My choice at this point is exodus - when it becomes a viable option. I might be able to choose cunning, but that would be a bad direction to go in this instance. This person has caused me a great deal of difficulty, and it isn't so simple for me to disregard it or turn the other cheek, to use a christian term.


I am very slow to choose an option other than kindness. It's generally the best one. In this we agree, but I think eventually you have to understand that kindness won't always work with every person, and sometimes, to prevent the person from causing negative impact, you have to resort to another option. I was bullied in highschool as well, but never once did I hit any of them. I avoided them until I could leave, which I did promptly by graduating from highschool during tenth grade.

Violence is probably my last option. Before that I will try kindness, if I think it has any chance of success. if not, or if it doesn't work after a GREAT deal of effort, I will generally go to exodus - just leave. if that isn't viable for whatever reason (I like where I am too much) then I will manipulate the person if I have to - but not violently. I really don't like even going there at all, but I will do what is necessary to accomplish the necessary goal. Will I physically harm someone? not bloody likely in everyday life - I'm not gonna shoot my boss because I don't like him. But is the potential there for me to decide on active resistance against a person? yes.
FinalEnigma wrote:I've come to the realization that one must take care of oneself before one can care for others.
I fully agree with you there. You must draw the line with sacrifice to be sure that you have something to give.
FinalEnigma wrote:I don't mean a self-first, I take-care-of-me thing, I'm not that cynical, what I mean is this:
I, for about a year, was planning on becoming a doctor. perhaps going into medical research. this could potentially help thousands or even millions of people. That sounds great to me, and I felt really good about it. but then I realized that if I did choose to follow that career path, I would be miserable, and would never be able to help anybody. So now I am choosing to do what will make me happy, and from that I will do what I can to help others. I will do far more good on this career path, following my own desires, that I ever would have as a doctor.
Then you have chosen the correct path, in my humble opinion. You are no good to anyone else if you are not good to yourself first. Following the path that you feel is right for you will make you happy and give you the strength, energy and will that you need to help others. If you are unhappy with your life, you will be depressed, drained, and no good to anyone including yourself. There will be others who know that they are called to do the research that you considered, and they will be happy and productive in their decision. And you will be successful in an area that they may have considered and yet abandoned for the same reasons you abandoned their field. Follow your heart and you cannot go wrong.
That was a tough one to realize too. Noble self-sacrifice seems so correct. I had to realize that if you let yourself be so mired in sacrifice that you cannot function, then you are no use to the people you are sacrificing yourself to save. I'm rather unhappy with myself that I stuck myself into an illogical and in the long run immoral belief for as long as a year.
FinalEnigma wrote:my point is this - if I let the bully, or whatever aggressor, negatively impact me, then he is negatively impacting all the people I could be helping if I weren't worrying about him. So yes, the first goal is to stop the aggressor. If I can benefit others than myself in the process, that is obviously the better choice.
But what does it mean to "let" the bully/aggressor negatively impact you? Could he tease, berate, and ridicule you and you not let it impact you? Or must you be affected and retaliate?
I tend toward the 'affected and not retaliate'. It's my personality, and partly my disorder I think. I'm trying to work away the 'affected' part and have somewhat succeeded. affected and not retaliate' is a completely useless option of course, unless I expect to win them over with kindness. My exodus plans sometimes take longer than I wish they would.


FinalEnigma wrote:
I believe that no good comes from violence whether it is being initiated or returned.
You are quite sure? no good ever comes from violence(excluding self defense of course)?
FinalEnigma wrote:
By defending your country, you bring peace to the citizens that otherwise would be killed.
Ah ha! so violence is acceptable to defend others?

but is it not acceptable for yourself?
I saw that one coming as I typed my post :)
Well, it was rather obvious wasn't it? :p
and it is a perfectly good point. Honestly, and I do hope you will not take this as a cop-out
Not at all. Its a perfectly valid answer and I accept it - with the caveat that when you do decide how you feel on the subject, you let me know - which you already said you would do, so no worries.

FinalEnigma wrote:
But we as citizens can set examples for others and maybe even break the cycle of violence now and then. I think the reward for doing so in a non violent manner is greater than the reward of seeing the bloody bully on the ground and thinking "he won't mess with me anymore".
Oh I quite agree with you. I would far prefer to turn somebody away from a violent path than kill him before he can start it, but you can't always turn someone. Sometimes, you have to make the less moral choice, because it's more moral to do so.

I love apparent contradictions like that. In case it's confusing let me give an example:

You are a brilliant general who is defending a small nation against it's aggressive and more powerful neighbor with a habit of pillaging and raping, but you are captured in a large battle. One of your soldiers infiltrates the enemy camp and finds you, and offers to take your place in the execution the next morning, as he looks very much like you. If you both try to escape, the enemy will catch you both, because you are too deep in his land, and could not possibly reach safety before he caught you. You know that, with the knowledge you've gained while inside the enemy camp, that you could defeat them if given the chance.

So do you do the immoral, cowardly thing and let him take your place?

or do you do the even more immoral thing and nobly sacrifice yourself, ensuring the soldiers survival, but also ensuring the destruction of your country and the slaughter of your people's women and children?

you have to let him take your place. You have to do the cowardly and immoral thing and use this soldiers life as a game piece to save yours, so that you can do the moral thing and save your country.
I would not force him to die for me. He knows the situation, and if he is a good soldier with our country's best interest in mind, then he would be willing to die for the greater good. I believe that I would be willing to do so if I were in his place. You might say, "that's easy for you to say, you don't have to". But honestly, if I were there and I knew that I could save a nation, what better way to die? Should I die saving a nation or die in a nursing home watching reruns of Gilligan's Island? I would be honored to do the former.
Thanks for not calling me on the "but what if your nation isn't a good nation and it should be wiped out?" to waste our time. :lol:
It would not be immoral or cowardly to let a man accept the choice of giving his life so that millions may live. To go and die yourself and let your country fall would be the immoral, not to mention irresponsible, thing to do. I can only imagine that pride would be one's motive in that decision.


Yes, but it's a lovely contradiction, isn't it? to let somebody die in your place so that you can keep living is immoral. But to choose to die instead of saving your nation is also immoral.

on the surface of it you can choose to die or choose to have the soldier die in your stead. to make the moral choice in the long run, you have to make the immoral choice on the surface.

It's beautiful - sometimes you have to even act in an evil manner, and let everybody think you are evil, to achieve a good result. This is a very hard choice to make. (also unfortunately off topic. :p Bad FE!). I love the intricacy involved in the situation.
I've had to deliberately hurt somebody, and let them think that I am a jerk, to do something good for them. They still think I'm a jerk, but they are better off that way. I don't like the situation, but I must admire the intricacy.

(by the way, I would like to invite you to a discussion - I can't even call it a debate - in another new thread. You're interesting. I like you. :lol: I will probably get it up tomorrow when I've had time to formulate it properly. For now I need to go to bed.)
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Re: Overcome the angry

Post #10

Post by OnceConvinced »

Seijun wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
I think it depends on the bully. There were some I tried those techniques on and they worked. There were others who saw right away that they could take advantage of me, so did. The only successful way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them, which I found to be true later on in life. They then realise they can't bully you. In fact many will come to respect you because of it. I can remember one guy bullying me at work and I stood up to him. After that we became great friends.

I don't believe you have to use violence. Often it's just a matter of remaining staunch, looking them in the eye and not backing down. Use your interlect rather than your fists.

:lol: It seems here is the first thing that we actually have opposing views on. :)
If it worked well a few times, you may have influenced those kids' lives for the better. It is actually possible that one of those people is a better person today having seen your example.
I've no idea, maybe, but no bully should be allowed to get away with what they are doing and nobody should ever tolerate bullying.
And the heartbreak you experienced was because you let their tormenting get to you. I don't mean to be callous when I say that, I know that it is tough on kids. This is a much easier concept for adults to handle as they are better equipped. I have all the sympathy in the world for kids who get bullied, as I dealt with my fair share of bullies growing up.
Here's an example: I was about eight years old and there was this kid who sat next to me in class who always bullied me. One day he had no paper to do his work on and asked me for a sheet. I gave him one. For the next couple of days he continued to ask me for paper and me being the caring Christian kid always gave him one. One day I decided to do what Jesus would have done. I gave him the whole pad and said that I would just ask him for sheets when I needed them. He took the pad and when I asked him for a sheet he refused, saying the pad was his. How does an 8 year old kid react? Well I didn't react that badly. It never dented my faith in God. But if you are trying to say that I shouldn't have let his bullying get to me, then you are being unrealistic. Bullying has a terrible psychological effect on people and can have lasting ramifications. If I had been taught to stand up to bullies I would have been a lot better off. Instead I suffered a lot of self esteem issues and fear because of it.

I teach my kids to stand up to bullies, because it is the only sure, really effective way to combat them. My son has developed a good technique, which is to make the bullies laugh. However I was never that quick thinking as a kid.
The fact is, if you fight back, you have 0% chance of changing or helping the bully
.
I disagree. In fact most of the bullies I have stood up to in my life came to respect me.

You may stop them from bullying you, you may even stop them from bullying others, but are they a better person for having been beaten up? I would think not. If you treat them all with kindness and compassion, and only one of them notices and changes for the better, look at all the good you have done for that one person. Is it not worth it to stay true to yourself, knowing you have never promoted violence, and to have helped someone else change for the better?
Sorry, kindness and compassion does not work for a lot of bullies. I've tried it, it just makes you a target. I think it's unrealistic and more wishful thinking than anything. Sure, try it at first, but if it doesn't work (which I have found the majority of times it doesn't), then you need to make a stand.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

Post Reply