Being "the better person" = bad?

[vlad321]

Calmador said:

vlad321 said:

Sorry but I had to shorten your response a little for the sake of space.

The article did not mention anything about abuse as a response, so you are arguing with somethign that was not claimed. However even then, taking the example of a bully, if you proceed to smash the bully's face in the pavement, kick him a few times in the ribs while he is down, then once in the face for good measure, I can guarantee with aroun 98% certainty he will not be bullying you again. If it happens to fall in the 2% who continue to do so, repeat grinding his bones into dust again, and next time I guarantee 100% that he won't be bullying again. It just WORKS, that's reality.

It's understandable

Yeah I know about not using the abuse in the article, but one or more people had that mind set and like you yourself seem to have it aswell thats why I spoke against that.

I was bullied[name calling] once and I didn't fight back, instead I went to the principle. Principle set the 2 bullies straight and they never bothered me again.I didn't lift a finger and I garantee you, the bullies didn't bother me 100% of the time later. That's better then me beating them up. Now if you have to defend yourself physically, if it's even allowed (I'm not sure yet)... but if you have to then atleast take concious in giving the other person the least amount of damage because whats the difference between you and him if you don't take concious in the other person? The bully didn't take concious in you when he was bulling you, and if you act the same then you wouldnt act any better, with anger and vengence, malice.

You don't see the difference between an action and a reaction? It is as plain as black and white......