Revenge: good or bad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I will fight back if I feel I have to.

---

Couple of posts back, you have said "I will strike those who strike at me." But your statement contradicts this, if you do fight back only if you feel you have the necessity to, does this mean you have a limitation of when to avenge yourself? If you believe that revenge is good/acceptable, then there is no reason to not to strike in any situation.

Back to the question whether revenge is good or bad, if the acts of revenge does lead to constant blood shed, which it usually does, do you support that revenge is indeed bad?

Personally, I am not the type of person to seek revenge. If someone hits me, I will in all probability just take the hit without retaliating. I've been like this all my life. And I don't think I've ever hit anyone earnestly, that is not in jest. Okay, that's a lie. But shortly after striking, I felt deeply sorry and guilty for my actions.

Seriously, what's the point of revenge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Couple of posts back, you have said "I will strike those who strike at me." But your statement contradicts this, if you do fight back only if you feel you have the necessity to, does this mean you have a limitation of when to avenge yourself? If you believe that revenge is good/acceptable, then there is no reason to not to strike in any situation.

Back to the question whether revenge is good or bad, if the acts of revenge does lead to constant blood shed, which it usually does, do you support that revenge is indeed bad?

---

I only meant that I am not going to do anything illegal becasue I have no desire to go to jail. But on priciple I have no qulams with revegnge in any situation, but I know soceity and the law does not share my personal code and I am not going to get myself in trouble, so I do act within the limitiations that the legal system has placed upon me.

I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

Seriously, what's the point of revenge?

---

The plain and simple truth is, it is satisfying to me, and gives me pleasure to retaliate against someone who has acted against me.

For me if someone hit me and hit them back, then I can put the matter completely behind me and be done with it. But if someone got away with hitting me, I would hold the grudge against them until I was able to settle the score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

The plain and simple truth is, it is satisfying to me, and gives me pleasure to retaliate against someone who has acted against me.

For me if someone hit me and hit them back, then I can put the matter completely behind me and be done with it. But if someone got away with hitting me, I would hold the grudge against them until I was able to settle the score.

---

Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!

If revenge implies getting back on someone for the wrongs that they have done then revenge is good. Here the word "good" implies it promotes cooperation and "wrong" means acting contrary to a promise/contract made previously. I had to define them as precisely as i could to avoid misinterpretation.

Now based on the aforesaid definitions let me show how it benefits the society. Written laws cover very few human interactions and mostly they deal with commercial and formal interactions. However outside the purview of our legal system there lie many human interactions which are indispensable for the well functioning of a society. e.g You dont expect a person hitting you on the face because you asked for direction!! Therefore trust and common values are very important.

Human beings are conditional cooperator (they cooperate as long as others cooperate) and altruistic punisher (if the other person breaks a promise they will go out of their way to punish that person in essence revenge). This is an evolutionary concept and it has served us well. If most people cooperated no matter what the other did then free rider problem would have crept up in the system, in the end flooding the system with free riders. Current research in evolutionary economics suggests that society where trust have flourished are usually the society where people tend to based their action on “reciprocation” . Revenge or the more technical term of altruistic punisher helps us make sure that there is a high cost for going back on one's promise. Death Penalty/Prison Sentence is I guess a kind of societal revenge but the essence is the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I only meant that I am not going to do anything illegal becasue I have no desire to go to jail. But on priciple I have no qulams with revegnge in any situation, but I know soceity and the law does not share my personal code and I am not going to get myself in trouble, so I do act within the limitiations that the legal system has placed upon me.

I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

---

Yes, I am sure that in reality you will not cause such malice that will throw you in jail. My point is, when revenging, why is there a chance that we are breaking the law? This means that the act of revenge is sometimes illegal. Even the most intellectually challenged being will be able to point out that ILLEGAL=BAD. So, ACT OF REVENGE=BAD.
Because you have claimed yourself that some acts of revenge are infact illegal therefore you have just supported that revenge is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!

---

There is a significant difference between supporting why revenge is good/bad and trying to convert a specific person to turn from their views on revenge. I believe that arguing about Dark Muse's own responsive nature about revenge is unnecessary. Dori, why don’t you express your view whether revenge is good or bad and elaborate it why you support it so.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Yes, I am sure that in reality you will not cause such malice that will throw you in jail. My point is, when revenging, why is there a chance that we are breaking the law? This means that the act of revenge is sometimes illegal. Even the most intellectually challenged being will be able to point out that ILLEGAL=BAD. So, ACT OF REVENGE=BAD.
Because you have claimed yourself that some acts of revenge are infact illegal therefore you have just supported that revenge is bad.

---

That depends on how you look at it. I have my own personal code of ethics and mortality which I believe in, but it is not always the same as the legal system and what society accepts. I believe my own personal code is right, and that the legal system and society is not always correct.

I believe in personal vigilantism , but I know the law frowns on it. That does not mean I admit that it is bad, just that society has chosen to make laws against it. I do not agree with this law, but I obey because it is beneficial to myself to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dori

Why hold a grudge? I've been hit many times in my life (a heck of a lot more than you have, I'll wager), and rarely did I retaliate. Nor did I hold any grudge. Heck, if I'm not too hurt, I might even smile, or better yet, laugh!

---

Because in my own way, being wrathful is acutally more satisfactory to me then being happy go lucky.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind!

The more you hurt other people, the more you stain yourself. I find that hurting other people makes me just as unhappy as them, in fact much more, so inflicting pain upon others is something I avoid.

Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.

Revenge is a childish way of venting frustration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

Remember that there are many circumstancial things and environmental factors (independent from the person her/himself, whose actions or personality are anything BUT inherent) that affect this person, therefore, you cannot judge anyone. You will never know what it is like to be them, and if you did...well you would be them; and make the same mistakes.

---

By that logic no one should be held accountable for anything they do, and anything should be considered a perfectly acceptable action. And a person should not be held responsible for the choices they make and how they choose to act, and the actions they commit

I just do not by into that kind of crap.

They should be held accountable, but not by you (remember, you are no better than them). If I were as faithful a Christian as I would like to be, I would say only God can judge them, but I am not so I will say this: the only person who may judge them is themself. Leave it to their conscience.

Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

Besides, since every immoral action makes a person less and less happy (which you did not give a rebuttal to, so I will assume you agree), should not their punishment be the erosion of their character?

---

Acutally I do not agree with that. To be quite honest unleashing my wrath upon someone who has wronged me does give me pleasure.

I am a vengeful person, but I am not an unhappy one.

I happen to throughly enjoy being myself.

If someone wrongs me I will personally hold them accountable for doing so. And under my own perosnal code there is nothing wrong in doing so as long as I act within the limits of the law to avoid getting myself in trouble.

You see people and their actions inherently. Nothing is independent from anything else. There is never one "bad guy" in a situation, and until you see that you will always be a fool (no offence intended).

Why do you keep speaking of your "wrath"? You are not some supreme deity.

It is just a fun word I like to use. You will learn not to take me quite so seriosuly.

While my views upon regenve are sincere not everything I say is meant to be taken completely litteraly.

You are welcome to call me a fool for I do not judge myself based upon the opinons of others. I may equally think you a fool

You said it!

But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them through your own eyes. There are no impartial judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

You said it!

But holding people accountable for anything is a dead end. You interpret their actions (which are not entirely their own...remember we do not choose our personality). How can your think that you interpretation of something is the truth? It never is. You cannot judge someone, because you see them through your own eyes. There are no impartial judges.

---

If someone does something that wrongs me in someway, if someone tries to hurt me of someone I care about, or offends me.

I do not care why they did it, though I do hold people directly responsible for the choices the make. I believe in free will and the fact that everything a person does they do because they choose to take that action.

Why they choose that action is irrelevant, because the outcome is the same.

And I will retaliate as I see fit. Because whatever the reasons for what they did, does not alter what happened, and they are the ones that physically caused it to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

That depends on how you look at it. I have my own personal code of ethics and mortality which I believe in, but it is not always the same as the legal system and what society accepts. I believe my own personal code is right, and that the legal system and society is not always correct.

I believe in personal vigilantism , but I know the law frowns on it. That does not mean I admit that it is bad, just that society has chosen to make laws against it. I do not agree with this law, but I obey because it is beneficial to myself to do so.

---

I do not mind about your own personal codes that may be against the law but lets not get too general about law and order itself. Lets look at only the result of revenge and the law that acts against it.

I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

I doubt that anyone believing in personal vigilantism will excuse a murder that is committed out of pure revenge which did not offend the murderer with equal harm beforehand. As anyone will not excuse such murder, this implies that the act of revenge is simply bad. Of course the law identifies this as illegal, thus bad but any one that is regarded as fair will also agree that this example of act of revenge is bad and the murderer should be punished in consequence.

---

Anything is bad if taken to the extreme no matter what it is. If a person shoots someone because they stepped on their shoe, that is obviously not acceptable, but that does not mean revenge in itself is bad, because one person acted in a way that was clearly extreme.

I would excuse murder if I felt the offence was strong enough.

In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.

I like to think of revenge in terms of risk and reward. In my experience of revenge, most of the reward lies in the motive and planning of the revenge, it is a psychological reward for he/she who wants and executes the vendetta. However, revenge,in addition to having an absolute risk for the person being revenged upon (if successful), is almost always also risky for many other people. For the person executing a vendetta, there can be legal,moral,social,political and economic risks that have various internal and external consequences, depending on the nature of the revenge.
Aside from the moral implications of revenge, the practical consequences and risks of most vengeance make it seem very unappealing to me as any means of productivity. Psychological gratification for a wrongdoing can be gained in ways much more productive and less risky than setting out to hurt someone else. I forget who first said it but I have always been fond of the expression "The best vengeance is to lead a good life."
Life is short. If someone has already spent part of yours hurting you, why waste more of your life hurting them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

In my belief in an eye for an eye it does not give a person free reign just to do whatever they want to do. But the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views.

---

Actually, your quote "but the repercussions must be equal the offence given. When handled in this way, revenge is just and good by my views" supports the idea that revenge is indeed unjust and bad. A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.
The word revenge defines as “to inflict harm in return for as an injury insult etc.” I have searched and searched however there is no statement supporting the meaning of revenge as the idea of returning the precise amount of harm to the offender. Therefore revenge is evil.

[QUOTE=skasian;650721] A repercussion, derived from revenge is not always equal from the harm given beforehand in reality. There is no strict measurement when dealing with the harm done in revenge unless it is absolutely literally eye for an eye. Because revenge itself doesnt deal with exact measured offence conducted from the offender, revenge cannot be good and just as most of time, repercussion cannot be equal to the offense given.[QUOTE]

This logic can be applied to many other things in life.

Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion.

So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad.

Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

This logic can be applied to many other things in life.

Take religion for example. Religion is not always used for good. People kill in the name of religion. People have been tortured, slaughtered, discriminated against for the sake of religion. It is up to each individual person how they interpret religion and how they act in the name of their religion.

So by your reasoning, because some people are extremists and fanatics and use religion to do harmful things to others. Religion must be declared as bad.

Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective.

---

To the atheists, the idea you have about religion may be frankly not wrong. However that is not the truth. In religion, people are prepared to do anything that is right in their religion therefore promote goodness in the world. In order to do this, they may indeed afflict harm to another. But it is for good reasons, prevent evil from overcoming the good. Revenge in the other hand, do not have a reason that promotes good over evil, and does not promote good to other people. Thus religion cannot be accounted to be in the same line as revenge. Furthermore, most religion, Christianity in particular advocates that revenge is evil and should not be conducted. The example of Jesus turning the other cheek in fact is a classic example that declares revenge as bad. As we all know Jesus was a man of perfectness, purity and all righteous, in support of religion, revenge is evil.

Your last quote "Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective" also supports the fact that you do believe that revenge cannot be ultimately declared wrong.

Mr.Hyde just about punched this thing in the face on the first page and was just about ignored.

Good and bad are relative terms to end goals. Good and bad pertaining to what desired outcome?

The way I see it, pendulum's swing. Action-reaction. Yes, that is a symplification, for the action and reaction work on multiple different entwining levels at ANY level, but nontheless...

You hurt me or my friends, I hurt you or your friends. Why? Because. My reaction to you punching me is not to cower, that is counter-productive to momentary safety, excluding a few isolated cases of course. You punch me, I am going ot punch you back. Survival mechanisms train us to do this. Morals refine it.

When it come down to it, your morals on the situation are internalized and developed because of your environment. Your "good" or "bad" perception, or rather conception, is a pendulum in and of itself. The clock ticks it's tock, you talk your walk, and then eventually, when presented, do the vice-versa.

But good and bad... I mean define with hwat terms you will, but these are not only vague and relative, but childish, in my eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Your last quote "Because there is no way to ultimately declare which side is right and which side is wrong. It is subjective" also supports the fact that you do believe that revenge cannot be ultimately declared wrong.

---

Yes I thought I made myself quite clear that in my mind revenge in itself cannot be declared as wrong. That does not mean I support people who take it to the extrme, but the idea of revenge, and the act of getting revenge, I do not see as wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

In religion, people are prepared to do anything that is right in their religion therefore promote goodness in the world. In order to do this, they may indeed afflict harm to another. But it is for good reasons, prevent evil from overcoming the good.

---

So in your mind, it is ok to harm another person for thinking differently then you, for worshiping differently then you, and holding a different set of values, because it is "for a greater good" Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good.

But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you.

So you are not against revenge because you have moral qualms against hurting other people you just do not agree with the motive of revenge, but in certain circumstances you think it is justifiable to hurt another person.

By your logic, if someone rapes your mother, it would be wrong to kill them, but if your neighbors happen to be Hindu, it would be justifiable to burn their house down, if you happen to believe that their religion is evil.

Quote:

---

Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good.

---

If it is not okay for the Christian to attack the Muslim for "stealing" his homeland (Jerusalem), then why is it okay for you to passive-aggressively demonstrate your "wrath" on those that you think have harmed you? You are a hypocrite.

Revenge is the excuse for these horrible crimes that you speak of. Nobody ever says "let's attack the Jew because he's different", they always list ways (false or true) in which the Jew has hurt us. Revenge blinds people and leads to further conflict. Now that you've attacked the Jew, he has a reason for hurting you. Don't you see this endless cycle? Ever heard of the crimes of Atreus? Agamemnon?

There is a difference between some sort of generalized revenge, and a direct retaliation for something that was done personally to you.

slaughtering an entire race, because of something that happened once upon a time ago, before you yourself was even born, is not the same, striking someone because they struck you first.

And wars started over religion, are never just about "revenge" there is always some other gain to be had from it, some political, or finical advantage. It is more about gaining power, then simply just wanting to avenge yourself because you feel wronged.

Quote:

---

And wars started over religion, are never just about "revenge" there is always some other gain to be had from it, some political, or finical advantage. It is more about gaining power, then simply just wanting to avenge yourself because you feel wronged.

---

Tell that to the Israelis and the Palestinians. They feel that their homeland has been taken.

The state uses the war as a tool to gain power, yes you are right. But the soldier and the citizen support it because they support this notion of revenge. This leads to delusion and allows the state to further blind these people and use them (to gain more power from the other state).

There is a difference between using the idea of revenge as a mask for alterior motives and comitting an act of revenge for revenge's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Vandemar

The state uses the war as a tool to gain power, yes you are right. But the soldier and the citizen support it because they support this notion of revenge. This leads to delusion and allows the state to further blind these people and use them (to gain more power from the other state).

---

The exzact same thing can be said about religion. Religion is used in very much the same way. For the corrupt to blind the poeple with something they feel passionate about in order to futher thier own power and ambitions.

Yes, but instead of enlightenment or spiritual awakening, revenge leads to nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Yes I thought I made myself quite clear that in my mind revenge in itself cannot be declared as wrong. That does not mean I support people who take it to the extrme, but the idea of revenge, and the act of getting revenge, I do not see as wrong.



So in your mind, it is ok to harm another person for thinking differently then you, for worshiping differently then you, and holding a different set of values, because it is "for a greater good" Religion has perpetrated some of the worst crimes against humanity, but that is justifiable, because they were acting in the name of God, and believed that they were killing and torturing others for good.

But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you.

So you are not against revenge because you have moral qualms against hurting other people you just do not agree with the motive of revenge, but in certain circumstances you think it is justifiable to hurt another person.

By your logic, if someone rapes your mother, it would be wrong to kill them, but if your neighbors happen to be Hindu, it would be justifiable to burn their house down, if you happen to believe that their religion is evil.

---

I cannot believe that you just contradicted yourself so obviously!
"But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you." This is, my friend, the definition of revenge. You said it yourself. Revenge is indeed wrong.

It seems that you have the wrong knowledge of religion, you have gone off in a complete opposite tangent from the truth. Being a Christian, I am advised to commit conflict in minimum amount as much as possible. No matter how the other religion contrasts from Christianity, it is against the Will of God to harm them just because of their non belief in Christianity. Mankind, regardless a Christian or not, are all children of God and God cherishes every single of us with unconditional love. The last thing that God wants to do is hurt us. But it is evident that in the Bible that God did eliminate many people. But that was God, not us. In closer past, there have been ongoing disturbance in civilisation such as the fight between Protestants and Catholics. They argued which of them was the more holy religion and fought to death. This was against God's Will, and it was mankind that was wrong, not religion itself. Therefore you are having the wrong idea about religion and its morality. I believe that most religion promote the idea that injuring an opposition in any way is wrong and therefore promote revenge is bad and should be avoided.

Nothing is only made in context to space and what your moral compass allows for.

Does it lead to an actual nothing, or is this place a blank spot you'd prefer better not to dwell in? Notice, there is a difference, and assuming the doorway itself is or isn't the door can be quite dangerous for those attempting to walk through it.

The nothing is imposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

I cannot believe that you just contradicted yourself so obviously!
"But it is wrong to retaliate against person who has actively and willfully done something to hurt you." This is, my friend, the definition of revenge. You said it yourself. Revenge is indeed wrong.

---

You misunderstood me. I was not stating that as my own personal beleif, sorry if I was unclear, but comparing your thoughts on revenge to your satatment that people who harm others in the name of religion are doing so for good, while those that are getting revenge is bad.

I was speaking of your own viewpoint on the subject, but not cliaming it as my own view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

You misunderstood me. I was not stating that as my own personal beleif, sorry if I was unclear, but comparing your thoughts on revenge to your satatment that people who harm others in the name of religion are doing so for good, while those that are getting revenge is bad.

I was speaking of your own viewpoint on the subject, but not cliaming it as my own view.

---

Nevertheless, your statement is indeed correct. I hope that your misunderstanding in religion is changed, and that it cannot be compared in the same line as revenge. Mankind acting evil in the name of religion is wrong whereas religion is not. Religion opposes revenge and defines it as evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Nevertheless, your statement is indeed correct. I hope that your misunderstanding in religion is changed, and that it cannot be compared in the same line as revenge. Mankind acting evil in the name of religion is wrong whereas religion is not. Religion opposes revenge and defines it as evil.

---

Followers of a particular faith at times succumb to acts of violence and as today people fight for idealism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

Followers of a particular faith at times succumb to acts of violence and as today people fight for idealism.

---

Religion promotes the sense of morality, sense of right and wrong. As religion promotes that revenge is a branch of violence, advocates that it is wrong.

Right and wrong solidifying our... sense of self formed in... opposition to other which makes... agreement impossible because... the world view of one simply does not permit?

Religion, or rather monotheism, is simply too easy to debunk. There are very few Christians who really understand hteir own religion, and those who do usually belong to Gnostic sects and worry themselves not with PROVING the righteousness of their religion. Most that I have conversed with are in understanding and agreement that religion does not automatical install a benevolent demeanor into the believer, nor does it redeem, and nor has it always acted as "just".

In fact it is only the Gnostics and hardcore Orthodox ministers that seem to understand and even accept my absolute disdain for their faith.

As always, the enlightened few lead, and the rest waddle behind, arguing totemic responses and knee jerk quips as if it were essence. Or absolute.

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my opinion:

A couple years ago, when I had just turned fourteen, this girl sorta wronged me. It wasn't some terrible thing that would take a very evil person to do, it was just something that girls do. So, anyways, I was very stupid and immature at the time, and my stupidity and immaturity led me to really try to mess up her life. I harassed her, called her with blocked numbers, tried to break up her and her boyfriend(I think I played a part in that happening, because they did break up), and harassed her friends.

My actions caused her to be afraid. At the time I just thought, "Oh well, she brought it on herself!", and I didn't think that what I was doing was wrong. I had fun doing it. But after I did it, I realized how wrong it was, and I confessed to her that it was me.

My point is, revenge might seem like the best course of action, but all it does is breed evil in yourself, and you might regret what you do out of revenge.

It's hard, very hard, for me to practice what I preach. I try not to think vengeful thoughts, but I do. After you fulfill your idea of revenge, it doesn't make you feel good. There's nothing there. No pot of gold at the end of your quest for revenge, just emptiness, and you realize your time was wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infinitefox

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my opinion:

A couple years ago, when I had just turned fourteen, this girl sorta wronged me. It wasn't some terrible thing that would take a very evil person to do, it was just something that girls do. So, anyways, I was very stupid and immature at the time, and my stupidity and immaturity led me to really try to mess up her life. I harassed her, called her with blocked numbers, tried to break up her and her boyfriend(I think I played a part in that happening, because they did break up), and harassed her friends.

My actions caused her to be afraid. At the time I just thought, "Oh well, she brought it on herself!", and I didn't think that what I was doing was wrong. I had fun doing it. But after I did it, I realized how wrong it was, and I confessed to her that it was me.

My point is, revenge might seem like the best course of action, but all it does is breed evil in yourself, and you might regret what you do out of revenge.

It's hard, very hard, for me to practice what I preach. I try not to think vengeful thoughts, but I do. After you fulfill your idea of revenge, it doesn't make you feel good. There's nothing there. No pot of gold at the end of your quest for revenge, just emptiness, and you realize your time was wasted.

---

I agree. May I ask what is that you preach?