So I was watching some video of some of the RoP savages, or animals that align themselves with the RoP, whichever you prefer. I watched them kill some people and felt extreme anger.

My idea of revenge is if some foreigner kills one American...we kill thousands of them.

If someone kills a family memember or someone I love...I torture them, then kill them.

If someone steals my car...I destroy everything they own.

I don't believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye". I believe in the concept of "both eyes and slow and painful death" for an eye.

Am I wrong? Full of too much hate to be rational? I don't think I am.





Warning: 89grand is mildly fucked up right now, but he knows what pisses him off and he also knows that there are some members and even a mod or 2 that are pro-RoP, although he can't begin to understand why, anyway, if a mod feels that this is against the Coc, please tell me so and lock the thread.

I don't believe in "eye for an eye". I'm more of a 2 for 1 kinda guy.

I got a phone call from a super fugly bitch who got my phone number from a friend as part of a joke.

I put his truck up for sale and he got 30 or 40 phone calls.

nuke option is the only way.

I retaliate to the extreme.

Um, are your guns all safely locked up right now?

Eye for eye,
Tooth for tooth,
nut for nut,

take your pick

Quoted: Um, are your guns all safely locked up right now?

Most of them...but certainly not all of them.

Quoted: I retaliate to the extreme.

I love it!

'Any sumbitch takes a shot at me, I'm not only gonna kill him, but I'm gonna kill his wife. All his friends. Burn his damn house down.'

I rape his village, and pillage his women.

Seeing as how I beleive the golden rule is a worthwhile moral principle, I don't really find enjoyment in revenge.  I also haven't really seen it useful as a deterrant.  Sure, I get angry, but thats just a temporary emotion, and once it passes, I'm not a very hateful person.

In my opinion, much more useful than revenge is compensation.  The notion of compensation in law is often attributed as being invented by the Phrygians, maybe around the 12th century BC.  This is probably the civilization's most important legacy to the world, with the possible exception of King Midas.  At the time, it seemed like a much more reasonable alternative to lex talionis, Hammurabi's Code.

Hammurabi's Code doesn't really work, and in most practical cases, the punishments are ridiculous, inappropriate, or overly severe.  For example, consider a terrorist who kills thousands of people.  Torturing and killing him, and even killing his entire family, probably would not be sufficient to atone for the crime.

I think that when someone commits a crime, and so is liable to "repay their debt to society," thats exactly what they should be doing.  And no, rotting away in some anus ramming factory doesn't repay crap to me, or anyone else.  Rather, the criminal should be required to repay, with interest, everything they have deprived from society.  You would steal $100 from me?  Great, thats like writing me a check for $250!  For crimes which repayment is very difficult, it is possible that this may be a life debt.  This sort of strategy, if implemented by a state such as the US, could be a very valuable source of production and commerce.  Our two million inmates, if "properly motivated," are a working force that would put all others to shame.

This sort of system is great for so many reasons.  One that I particularly make is that it makes certain catagories of crimes go away, as people whose "crimes" incur no "debt" need no punishment.  Another is that people who feel forced to commit crimes, such as steal food to survive, are quite free to do so, provided they are willing to repay the owner in full, with interest.  Crime could almost be a good thing, as the victim would often get more benefits than damage.

Quoted: I don't believe in "eye for an eye". I'm more of a 2 for 1 kinda guy.

Same here.

I have a rule:  I will play nice as long as everyone else does, but when someone doesn't, it comes down on them ten fold.

Quoted: I don't believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye". I believe in the concept of "both eyes and slow and painful death" for an eye.

You pegged the definition of "eye for an eye" right there.  Lot of people think it means to dish out equal punishment, it really means to seek revenge or something, it really means dish out no more than equal punishment. see wikipedia

"He lets the last Hungarian go. He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents' friends. He burns down the houses they live in and the stores they work in, he kills people that owe them money. And like that he was gone. Underground. Nobody has ever seen him since. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night."

Quoted: "He lets the last Hungarian go. He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents' friends. He burns down the houses they live in and the stores they work in, he kills people that owe them money. And like that he was gone. Underground. Nobody has ever seen him since. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night."

It was Keyser Soze, Agent Kujan! I mean the Devil himself. How do you shoot the Devil in the back?

I believe in all or nothing.

If it's worth retaliation, it's worth everything you have.

you guys make me chuckle.

So I assume you believe that some devine intervention will make things right?

a strongly worded letter

real revenge is making them sorry they ever even considered messing with you in the first place.

It is not "oh well, you got me, we're even".

Revenge to me means:

I will kill his men, occupy his towns and cities and hear the lamentations of his women....

If you do enough to cross me and trigger that response, watch out....war has no laws in my book....

I escalate x10 whatever is malicious harm is done to me. However, there is an exception; if someone fucks with my truck, family, dogs, or a certain woman, escalate x10000.

Exception to both rules. If the person can spend a long time in jail or owe me lots of money for what they did. Then I call the police.

Quoted: My idea of revenge is if some foreigner kills one American...we kill thousands of them.

I am all for retaliating against the individual or individuals who were involved in a crime, but extending that to innocents who happen to be related, or friends, or random strangers just in the general vicinity, is wrong.

What's the difference between that and killing some guy's dog because he shot yours?  His dog didn't have any say in the matter.  He's the guilty party, and he is the one who should be punished.

Given your end comment about the "RoP", I get the impresson that you are relating the concept of "revenge" to the current wars.  This is not merely unrealistic;  they go far beyond any rational concept of revenge.  We aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan for revenge, we're over there to remove destabilizing governments and hopefully create a better situation for both them and us.  Trivializing these wars as revenge is irrational and sick.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye". I believe in the concept of "both eyes and slow and painful death" for an eye. You pegged the definition of "eye for an eye" right there.  Lot of people think it means to dish out equal punishment, it really means to seek revenge or something, it really means dish out no more than equal punishment. see wikipedia

Is it just me, or was that not quite coherent?

Quoted: real revenge is making them sorry they ever even considered messing with you in the first place. It is not "oh well, you got me, we're even".

To some extent.  Depends on what happened.


And all is fair in love and war.  Collateral Damage is a BITCH.

Quoted: Quoted: My idea of revenge is if some foreigner kills one American...we kill thousands of them. I am all for retaliating against the individual or individuals who were involved in a crime, but extending that to innocents who happen to be related, or friends, or random strangers just in the general vicinity, is wrong. What's the difference between that and killing some guy's dog because he shot yours?  His dog didn't have any say in the matter.  He's the guilty party, and he is the one who should be punished. Given your end comment about the "RoP", I get the impresson that you are relating the concept of "revenge" to the current wars.  This is not merely unrealistic;  they go far beyond any rational concept of revenge.  We aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan for revenge, we're over there to remove destabilizing governments and hopefully create a better situation for both them and us.  Trivializing these wars as revenge is irrational and sick.

+151234654653 !!!!!1111


nice to see someone say something rational in one of these threads.