THE FIRST PROBLEM IS THAT YOURE A LAZY BUM WHO CANT READ FOR LONG PERIODS!!! ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ or are you?................................................. OK FOLKS!!! This is becoming an overly complicated issue for people to wrap their sissy little brains around, and frankly Im disgusted by it, and simply sick of it! Im disgusted because this is the way that our society is heading towards, and it is making us weaker as a people of all backgrounds and beliefs. So for your education, Im going to lay this whole thing out in simple terms ONCE and for all.... **********We all want to forgive those who do us wrong. But the problem is that it is just not as EASY as that!!!!!********** Im going to introduce this point in simple language so you and your child can talk it through it step by step and understand it before I talk about it in depth. Because its apparently so complicated that we have to go through it like preschoolers. The truth is, the situations presented before you are NOT as complicated, or as convoluted of basic detail as they appear to be. Situation 1 ... 1. Perpetrator perpetrates, and hurts victim. 2. Victim is hurt. 3. Victim says stop. 4. Perpetrator Hurts victim again. 5. Victim seeks Help. 6. Victim and help warn perpetrator to stop. NOW then.... 7a. Perpetrator continues to hurt victim. 8a. Victim and help both STOP perpetrator. 9a. Victim and Help punish perpetrator. 10a. Perpetrator is stopped OR.... 7b. Perpetrator stops 8b. Perpetrator apologizes 9b. Victim forgives perpetrator. 10b. Victim and Perpetrator make up OR.... 7c. Perpetrator stops 8c. Perpetrator apologizes 9c. Victim DOES NOT forgive perpetrator. 10c. Victim and Help punish Perpetrator 11c. Victim is vindicated for perpetrator to be forgiven. Now... Before you start asking yourself a bunch of what-if questions, let me explain how this does NOT work. Situation 2... 1. Perpetrator perpetrates, and hurts victim. 2. Victim is hurt. 3. Victim forgives Perpetrator.... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS? Well first of all, perpetrating is wrong in itself. But what ELSE is wrong?? Whats wrong is that the victim is being perpetrated, but he is FORGIVING it!! This basically says its OK for doing this perpetrating. The problem with this is that while forgiveness and condonement mean two different things to the victim, they do not mean two different things to the perpetrator. The perpetrator does not STOP when the message is that he is forgiven for doing something wrong. SO... Situation 2 is NOT okay!!! Now heres another situation where it is NOT okay!!! Situation 3... 1. Perpetrator perpetrates, and hurts victim. 2. Victim is hurt. 3. Victim says stop. 4. Perpetrator Hurts victim again. 5. Victim seeks Help. 6b. Help feels bad for victim 7b2. help say no stopping perpetrator. What is wrong with THIS? you are asking. Help felt sorry, didnt he? thats good, isnt it? Yes, it is good. But help is supposed to actually HELP the Victim, not simply feel bad for them!! this is wrong because when victim reached out, help wouldnt come to his aid. so therefore, Situation 3 is NOT okay! Now lets look at another situation. Situation 4.... 1. Perpetrator perpetrates, and hurts victim. 2. Victim is hurt. 3. Victim says stop. 4. Perpetrator Hurts victim again. 5. Victim seeks Help. 6c. Help sides with Perpetrator 7c2. Perpetrator and help both hurt victim again. Whats wrong with-- OKAY IF YOU JUST FINNISHED ASKING YOURSELF THAT FOR THIS ONE, YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND A HALF!!!!!! The reason this is NOT okay is because the help condones the perpetrator and NOT THE VICTIM!!! This is telling the victim that what is being wrongly done to perpetrate and hurt them is okay from more than the perpetrators perspective. Heres a simple way to look at it; 2 wrongs do not make it right. 2 or more people in favor of doing something wrong does not make doing it right!!! Therefore situation 4 is NOT Okay!!!!! Now that the situations are mostly presented, before you start giving us all the whole slew of what-ifs and how-abouts, ask yourself this one group of simple questions; Why do I need to hear this? Why does this need to be simplified to me? why is this important to begin with? Now if you actually felt like you needed to ask yourselves those, here is the main reason.... From what I am seeing from peoples actions, hearing out of peoples mouths, and reading on peoples posts, is that when people do wrong to us, we must forgive them....This is a good thing, no questions asked. We definitely SHOULD forgive those who hurt us. and if I were given incentive to forgive those who hurt me, I would likely do so.... But what people are saying in their words is giving off an underlying implication, and one which, despite all of its good intentions, is in fact VERY VERY BAD! And it is extremely dangerous to be assumed..... We dont need any reason to forgive, save by that very virtue that it is a divine and goodly thing to do anyway for the sake of those we do it to for their wrongs against us. This is the assumption that no matter what wrong is done to us, forgiveness without an incentive to do so is unmitigatingly right and should be done anyway without conditions. This is an implication which challenges mutual exclusivity in our actions and our words, and throws too deeply into question the simple concepts of what is right and what is wrong. It confuses the hell out of the debate team when someone throws in an argument that any retaliation against a perpetration is no better than the initial wrong committed. It attempts to undo the foundation on which many of our cultural, natural, and man-made laws are established. If I were to torture and torment you throughout your entire school tenure, thereby affecting your performance and ability to move on to a better sort of higher education, you would have no right under this implication except to forgive me and live with every injury I cause you. This would be regardless of the negative long-term effect my countenance leaves you with. If some whacked out liberal with a firearm were to murder your wife and children, and burn down your business establishment--thereby permanently robbing you of your capital gains and the very reasons you hold them all together--, then you would have no right, under this implication, to appeal to any justice system, except to offer prayers that your forgiveness reaches to some sort of warm, fuzzy spot in their heart before its too late for something... Do you see where this is going yet? The implication in itself, that you need no reason except that it is righteously good to forgive people anyway, ultimately undermines the physical and existing purposes for there to be consequences for our actions. It waives your right to the protection and retribution that those consequences give you as a victim. One other thing that this does is it creates one of the most antagonistic confusions of our reactions to the perpetrators themselves. Suppose the Perpetrator was compelled for his own string of reasoning to do what he does. The initial reaction in the minds of some of us is that we ought to empathize with the perpetrators motivating plight. There is no wrong in this; everybody is entitled to think whatever they want, weather it be in favor of the perpetrator or the victim. But what makes our empathy wrong is when we equate our empathy for the perpetrator to the condoning of his very actions in the first place. This is the very practice of the implication against our own justice system which protects society from the maniacs who cause harm unto it. We are simply driven to forgive by the very notion that no matter how evil someone is, it is still good to do so for them. To the Christians who preach and practice this implication more than any other group of people, this should be seen as the release of Barabas and the condemnation of Christ to death by a mob-justice brought on by a religious oligarchy of initial perpetrators. This implication has its examples in both religion, as it does in politics and world affairs. Im not going to give you folks Further specific examples as I want you to research them yourselves. But I will leave you with this final point: We all want to forgive those who do us wrong. Gods know that I sincerely want to forgive the last of the people whove hurt me. Gods know I want to forgive those assholes who turned their backs on me when I needed help those eight to eleven years ago. The gods know that I want to forgive the gang of men who tried to kill one of my best friends, and Gods know, better than anyone Ive ever talked to in my life, I want to forgive the man who let a good deal of them get away with it, and who permanently damaged my initial music career and spread it into my college days. But the problem is that it is just not as EASY as that!!when we forgive people so lightly as you all try to encourage me to, and with such a lack of vindication as we are wont to do in this day and age, We open ourselves up to further unnecessary pain inflicted on not just us, but on those whom we love and deeply care for. And then we keep asking ourselves why there is such senseless violence or other wrongdoings in our world, when we have already discarded one of our strongest physical, mental, emotional and spiritual defenses against it all by forgiving our attackers. We dont owe it to anyone to forgive those who hurt us, no matter what our beliefs might decree, and we shouldnt just hand it out as an amenity to those who do not even bother to ask for it, much less to those who do ask and dont deserve it likewise. We shouldnt be pigeon holing ourselves into a situation where we have to decide weather--our care, our concerning empathy and our reaction to those wrongdoings go--to a perpetrator, or to the loved one whose life or reputation they are about to end and extinguish.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:24:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015