Is revenge inferior to non-revenge?

Hwoever, three lefts do make a right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that the only time you can say that someone has lost their innocence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes

how else could they?
whatever they have done they are inocent of the events happerning to them

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And to "forgive and forget" is certainly to let evil go unpunished. Or do you want to quantify your statement to "only take revenge when it is truly evil"?[/QUOTE]

Why is to forgive and forget to let evil go unpunished. Why would you forget if you forgive. I think if someone has wronged you can still do something about it and that dosn't mean its revenge. For example if you had a crased gunman killing people in your neigbhoured and he had killed someone you love. In this situation you can still make a proactive stance and do something about the situation like smacking his head in. To me thats not taking revenge but fighting for survive. Revenge to me would be killing him, however, if this situation was real the guy most likely would be better of dead anyway. So in one way you could forgive him and still kill him as you could argue that was the best thing for him.

 

see you hit it on the head jacob, if there was a killer on the lose you let the police catch him (unless he is actually coming at you or your family with a knife and then you do anything you can to survive) and then lock him up forever if needed. That is whats nessary to satisfy survival of the community, it becomes nothing but revenge when you then decide to kill him. So what does the revenge acomplish? are people any safer than they were with him locked up for ever? no Does it bring one victom back? no So does it accomplish anything? no So what good is revenge? none

 

Personally, I think that letting the police deal out the "revenge" is just another step towards the "pussification" of society at large. There is no difference between you taking revenge for yourself or you taking "revenge" through an intermediary (like the police), except that in the latter case you don't have to feel as much, if any, remorse. For the revenge.

 

Police enforces the preventive function not revenge, i.e., to prevent the person from doing the same crime again and to prevent others (by scaring them) from doing simmilar crimes.

 

aka, revenge.

 

I suggest you look up what 'preventive' means.

 

I suggest you learn how to spell preventative in english first.

 

At least I know the correct meaning.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I've been learning criminal rights for longer than I wish to know the theory of preventive action. My slight misspelling has nothing to do with the argument.
In your eyes I did a mistake in spelling, in my eyes you in critical thinking.
Ah, and so you know - preventive is a correct spelling too, Webster agrees -> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=preventive&x=0&y=0

 

Who gives a shit? Preventative = early revenge.

 

I suggest you study criminology.

p.s. Apparently it is you who gives shit.

 

Cottontop, you use the LEAST amout of force needed to make sure that the peson cant do it again, revenge says that you use the MOST amout of force for its own sake

 

Is this according to the Asguard dictionary?

 

revenge make me feel good.

 

It's hard not to revenge.

 

This reminds me of a Nietzscheien philosophy: when debtor's used to have pounds of flesh removed for money owed. By allowing the person owed to watch, then the administration of this punishment served simply to bring satisfaction to them, not to discourage others from borrowing money they could not repay.