Vengeance

No, it isn't. If someone harms me, I can harm ONLY that person. And since it's that person, ONLY HE could harm me back.

:rolleyes:

So then.. killing ANY person is OUT OF THE QUESTION, as you can only kill them when they have killed you.
We all know dead people don't take revenge.

Then it's revenge on their behalf, i.e, the death penalty, which is both justice, fair, and revenge

It's revenge on the murderer on behalf of the victim, given by the state, but it's on behalf of the victim
 

I don't quite think you understand what I am saying. It's about the person who did the wrong, not the person who was wronged. The person who did the wrong can have vengeance against him, by the person who was wronged or his relatives.
 
I don't quite think you understand what I am saying. It's about the person who did the wrong, not the person who was wronged. The person who did the wrong can have vengeance against him, by the person who was wronged or his relatives.

So if someone killed your brother you'd be on his ass like there was no tomorrow.. right ?
What about the brother of the one you killed in revenge ? Does he have a right to revenge his brother like you did ?
 
So if someone killed your brother you'd be on his ass like there was no tomorrow.. right ?
What about the brother of the one you killed in revenge ? Does he have a right to revenge his brother like you did ?

No, because his brother was guilty. Do the families of the scum who get executed start a resistance against the government? no.
 
No, because his brother was guilty. Do the families of the scum who get executed start a resistance against the government? no.

But maybe your brother was guilty of killing a family member of the one that killed your brother without you knowing it.
 
Ah, but they did harm you, so you could take revenge on them, on behalf of your mother.

Take revenge on he who commits wrong.

ah, but the key word is DIRECTLY. they did not harm you directly, they harmed your mother. if revenge is in kind, should i not hurt their mother too?
 
No it isn't. How would you know.. ?
Then they'd have the right because my "brother" would've been guilty

ah, but the key word is DIRECTLY. they did not harm you directly, they harmed your mother. if revenge is in kind, should i not hurt their mother too?

Yes, they harmed my mother; again, it's the wrongdoer, not the person who was wronged. Anyone can get revenge so long as it's on the wrongdoer. The wrongdoer would've harmed my mother, therefore, he is the wrongdoer and can be executed.
 
norse said:
They'd be the idiots that don't understand that revenge is direct. An eye for an eye is direct; if one man harms you, you harm him, you don't harm his friends or relatives. That's pointless.
But it brings them peace, just like your revenge brought you peace.

It's the one taking the revenge who makes those decisions. Revenge minded people are not known for their discretion and common sense. You kiss their girl, they kill your dog.

So once you start taking revenge, best watch out. Payback's a bitch.
 
If we use "payback", instead of revenge, we already tamed the notion.

After all, if we expect a positive payback after a job well done, why shouldn't we expect a negative payback after causing harm?

I know, it is simple...Cause-effect thingy....
 
Back
Top