AppleDumplingHead
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,171
Wrong. They were motivated by hating others for their situation, and thinking that they had a right to harm others so that they could have their own way.
On the other hand, the people you are attacking just want to be left alone. But can't because they are being attacked, and have to fight back to defend themselves.
There is a right to self defense. There is not a right to persecution.
To the former, you're... not right. That's not how these things work. It might seem very 2-sided from the vantage point of the disenfranchised, but it's never so simple. I can't "make" you understand that, but if you cared to find the root of the problem, and it was and still is a problem, you'd put forth that effort.
To the latter, again, it depends on the nature of the attack and the nature of the defense. You're being so vague, I can't help but be equally vague. Most of these slights or trespasses to which you're alluding can simply be hashed out without special protections or just saying "that's just your opinion, man". Some people are just very good at playing the victim and wish disproportionate negativity to the person or persons which specifically offend them. That has repercussions, too, as charges of malicious prosecution. Be very measured in your responses, or even the jerk with the loud mouth will end up with your paycheck, no matter how good you are at the "soccer flop".
Also, who in your hyperbolic nonsense are you accusing me of "attacking"? Are you trying to win the internet award for exaggeration?
Last edited: