Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Is i through physical force or through intellectual honesty?
Or something else?
Why is it better?
Or something else?
Why is it better?
What is the better way to ultimately defeat someone?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
charface
Well-Known Member
There is no better way to win
There is only winning or losing.
Drag them into your world and lay your eggs in their torso that your young may thrive.
Plus im too stupid to use words.
But then again.
Who gives a shit about words compared to having a hole punched in your face.
There is only winning or losing.
Drag them into your world and lay your eggs in their torso that your young may thrive.
Plus im too stupid to use words.
But then again.
Who gives a shit about words compared to having a hole punched in your face.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
why do you have to defeat anyone? why not cooperate with them and you both benefit?
Venus55
Well-Known Member
Well now that’s the million dollar question isn’t it? “Why can’t we co-operate” and all get along? If only it were that easy.
Don’t get me wrong I totoally agree with you, but unfortunately it’s impossible to co-operate with many people. No matter how hard you try their only intent is conflict, as tho they thrive on it. In these situations the best way to win is to take the higher ground and walk away. Say your part, stay honest, resist insults, wish no ill, and just walk away.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
depends on the situation. being peaceful doesn't make me a pacifist. i don't have any problem with anyone, if they don't make any problems. i'm happy to share with people that share with me. i'm happy to help people that help me. i'm not happy to let anyone take anything from me, or anyone else. i'm not happy to let anyone force me or anyone else to do anything against our will...take the highroad, it offers a better vantage to hit your enemies from
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
Why do we always need to defeat? Isn't it better to try and get along? What's wrong with figuring out and convince another they have a wrong view and how they too can have your right view. Who knows. Maybe after finding out their "wrong view" you find out your "right view" is actually incorrect.
Sincerely,
Namo Amituofo.
Sincerely,
Namo Amituofo.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
Defeat in what context? Arguments or debates? Competitions? Life?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
the best thing to do with a real enemy is to make them harmless. the measures employed depends on how intent they are on doing you harm. they can range from public humiliation....to a brutal beating.....to legal action.....to feeding him to the pigs then eating the bacon for breakfast and shitting him out by lunch time.....
but i mean a REAL enemy....not the old lady across the street who's dog shits on your lawn....a simple claymore will fix that
but i mean a REAL enemy....not the old lady across the street who's dog shits on your lawn....a simple claymore will fix that
Buddha2525
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Which is why I try to stay away from most liberals. While I might agree with their outcome, I don't agree with their path there.
What happens is this. Say you get a cure for AIDS.
In senario 1, a greedy corporation cures AIDS, but only gives it to those with a $10 million+ bank account.
In senario 2, a philanthropist billionaire spends over half his fortune on the cure and puts the research in the public domain and enough shots to give gene therapy to 100% eradicated the HIV virus with a nutrient booster to revitalize the damaged cells.
Which one is better?
The same is with lefties who espouse, "racism is bad!"
Ok, so which is better:
Senario 1, a racist goes to jail because he denies the holocaust.
Senario 2, former neonazi Christian Picciolini who hates all things not white culture, who opens up a music store, and while selling to those he hates out of capitalist greed, since money knows know race(it's all green!), he realizes he's wrong.
I pick scenario 2 in both cases. In scenario 2 racist he goes to jail, joins a race gang like the Aryan Brotherhood, learns not to say things in public, and becomes the next Dylan Roof, but ups the death count, use your imagination for how.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i don't get the connection between my statement and yours...
Bird_Dawg420
Member
The person that actually needs defeating is your self, that is to say the desire to defeat another human being. Figure out what aspect of the self that drives you to feel like you need to defeat the other human being and overcome it. This desire is what causes and compounds your suffering, which makes the need to conquer another even greater for a quick hit of "better than" and validation. You are already valid and seeking the light bc you are asking questions.
I hope that makes sense, I know nothing, just my 2 cents from 35+ years of feeling like I'm in constant conflict with the world around me and trying to overcome it peacefully. This perspective has worked for me, maybe it will be of use to you.
I hope that makes sense, I know nothing, just my 2 cents from 35+ years of feeling like I'm in constant conflict with the world around me and trying to overcome it peacefully. This perspective has worked for me, maybe it will be of use to you.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
we have a drive to compete within us. the goal isn't to defeat that drive, it's to harness it and use it for constructive purposes.
Srirachi
Well-Known Member
There are righteous reasons to defeat others. Life is a competition according to Darwin and there is nothing more natural than competing for resources. Even when you need to defeat evil there are ways to do it that don't involve conquest or conquering. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as having said "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?"
If you use force to compel others, they will do what they must. But if you use logic to compel them, they will want to do what you want them to do. Rome conquered most of the known world and after conquering a civilization, they made them full Roman citizens with full rights. They could destroy entire cultures, and did, through their sheer military might - but chose to conquer the minds of their defeated foes whenever possible instead of enslaving them. It seems to have worked really well for them.
Lots of words to say "intellectual honesty".
If you use force to compel others, they will do what they must. But if you use logic to compel them, they will want to do what you want them to do. Rome conquered most of the known world and after conquering a civilization, they made them full Roman citizens with full rights. They could destroy entire cultures, and did, through their sheer military might - but chose to conquer the minds of their defeated foes whenever possible instead of enslaving them. It seems to have worked really well for them.
Lots of words to say "intellectual honesty".
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
The only way to ultimately beat someone is to kill them IMO.
Unless you can think of something more "ultimate" kol
Unless you can think of something more "ultimate" kol
Dalek Supreme
Well-Known Member
Either go for the weak spot, or distance yourself as far as possible from them.
Bugeye
Well-Known Member
I love your second sentence, thought provoking. I think your first sentence is debatable as expressing hate is not consistent with indifference.I think tell them to fuck off and ignore their very existence. The opposite of love is indifference.
