northpolarbear
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 260
- 14
- 26
One should not have to do what he doesn't want nor like especially when it's rightfully entitled aside from how he would not & don't want to do such.
The matter with rightfulness & should is simple. Either one should do something or should not do something. In this case, we are talking what's rightfully entitled & "should" be done. Aside from it, it is wanted to be done & would be done anyway.
As for anyone who wants to stop such, such is a violation of right; it is immoral & wrongful aside from being illegal anyway. You should not make someone do what he doesn't like nor want especially for the things rightfully entitled. What he would do or want to do is his own call entirely. As for what he should do, we are talking the case where he is rightfully entitled to such; he should do such. Also, he should do what he wants & likes. He shouldn't have to do what he doesn't want & doesn't like.
What you want to have or what you want to see is irrelevant. You can't tell someone what to do. It is not a right you are entitled to. It is not an obligation that someone is forced with. Your whole existence is separate & irrelevant to him. His rights are independent of your want, especially when you want wrongful things. You "should not" tell someone what to do. If you forcefully attempt to make someone do what you want which he doesn't want, it is just plain illegal aside from also being immoral & wrongful. You are just punished & sued. You should be punished & sued. On top of it, you are obviously legitimately hated.
We are talking in terms of rightfulness & entitlement. We are not talking about choosing any form of profit over entitlement. One should not do what he doesn't want nor like. One should do what he wants or likes, especially when it is rightfully entitled. It is moral, rightful, legal. One should not be forced to do what he doesn't like nor want; his will & rights should not be infringed. It's an infringement of rights & entitlements. He is not obligated to be done such. You are not entitled to doing such. He has such rights. You have no rights to infringe. One should not force someone else to do, want, like what "you" want. You shouldn't tell someone else what to do. Aside from setting the rightfulness, entitlement, should part straight, you are just punished if you insist yourself upon the victim of your want especially when you want wrongful things. Also, in this case that we see, that someone wants to & would do what he is entitled anyway.
Aside from rightful legitimate hatred following as a valid consequence being entitled, having it is each's own call while what you want is irrelevant. They should not have to do what you want. They have no such obligation. They are entitled to what they want to do which happens to be rightful & legitimate. They should do what they want. It's each's own call. In my case, I happen to hate rightfully when I am entitled to such.
Also, so called "moving on" is neither rightful nor obligation. Such is not an entitled act. You can't force someone else to do so. Someone else should not have to do so. As for whether he not wanting so & not going to do so, it is entirely 100% his call.
Nothing morally wrong with promoting hatred when it is the fact & rightful consequence, not to mention being legal. The question is whether the premise is correct.
Hatred is not an immoral concept. Peace is not a moral concept. They are a matter of consequence. They are about what's nice, not about what's rightful & good. Hatred is both legal & moral especially when it's rightful. There should be a rightful consequence. There shouldn't be an infringement of that entitlement.
Also, just like uncalled peace is immoral, forceful uncalled peace is illegal (infringement of individual rights such as rightful hatred & rightful consequences). Also, there are no laws enforcing uncalled peace. There are no laws for disturbing uncalled peace neither. There are laws regarding “rightful & called” peace, but these laws are on the rights being violated & illegal harms being done instead of the mindset (having hatred or such is not subject to laws but only the actions are subject to laws if they are illegal & wrongful instead of being legal & rightful like you hearing a rightful profanity which is legal). There is actually no law on peace at all but just on “regular legal stuffs”. There is a law involving the word peace. There are laws like “breach of the peace” or “disturbing the peace”, but this does not mean having hatred or not (especially rightful hatred & rightful consequences) but about an actual illegal action (not subject to legal actions) & illegal harm (not subject to legal harms) being done. Quoting from Google, “modern authority defines a breach of the peace as existing whether harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person or his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance”. Harm on person or property only. No law on peace. When it calls for the situation, hatred, penalization, punishment, suing, etc are entitled.
Nothing morally wrong with promoting hatred when it is the fact & rightful consequence, not to mention being legal. Also, there is nothing wrong with false identity or profanity when you deserved such morally, not to mention being legal anyway. Also, it is a right to gloss over something when running into such, both morally & legally. One should not have to restrain himself neither morally nor legally when running into such. It’s his right. It is not disorderly. It’s a right to feel, express, respond.
The matter with rightfulness & should is simple. Either one should do something or should not do something. In this case, we are talking what's rightfully entitled & "should" be done. Aside from it, it is wanted to be done & would be done anyway.
As for anyone who wants to stop such, such is a violation of right; it is immoral & wrongful aside from being illegal anyway. You should not make someone do what he doesn't like nor want especially for the things rightfully entitled. What he would do or want to do is his own call entirely. As for what he should do, we are talking the case where he is rightfully entitled to such; he should do such. Also, he should do what he wants & likes. He shouldn't have to do what he doesn't want & doesn't like.
What you want to have or what you want to see is irrelevant. You can't tell someone what to do. It is not a right you are entitled to. It is not an obligation that someone is forced with. Your whole existence is separate & irrelevant to him. His rights are independent of your want, especially when you want wrongful things. You "should not" tell someone what to do. If you forcefully attempt to make someone do what you want which he doesn't want, it is just plain illegal aside from also being immoral & wrongful. You are just punished & sued. You should be punished & sued. On top of it, you are obviously legitimately hated.
We are talking in terms of rightfulness & entitlement. We are not talking about choosing any form of profit over entitlement. One should not do what he doesn't want nor like. One should do what he wants or likes, especially when it is rightfully entitled. It is moral, rightful, legal. One should not be forced to do what he doesn't like nor want; his will & rights should not be infringed. It's an infringement of rights & entitlements. He is not obligated to be done such. You are not entitled to doing such. He has such rights. You have no rights to infringe. One should not force someone else to do, want, like what "you" want. You shouldn't tell someone else what to do. Aside from setting the rightfulness, entitlement, should part straight, you are just punished if you insist yourself upon the victim of your want especially when you want wrongful things. Also, in this case that we see, that someone wants to & would do what he is entitled anyway.
Aside from rightful legitimate hatred following as a valid consequence being entitled, having it is each's own call while what you want is irrelevant. They should not have to do what you want. They have no such obligation. They are entitled to what they want to do which happens to be rightful & legitimate. They should do what they want. It's each's own call. In my case, I happen to hate rightfully when I am entitled to such.
Also, so called "moving on" is neither rightful nor obligation. Such is not an entitled act. You can't force someone else to do so. Someone else should not have to do so. As for whether he not wanting so & not going to do so, it is entirely 100% his call.
Nothing morally wrong with promoting hatred when it is the fact & rightful consequence, not to mention being legal. The question is whether the premise is correct.
Hatred is not an immoral concept. Peace is not a moral concept. They are a matter of consequence. They are about what's nice, not about what's rightful & good. Hatred is both legal & moral especially when it's rightful. There should be a rightful consequence. There shouldn't be an infringement of that entitlement.
Also, just like uncalled peace is immoral, forceful uncalled peace is illegal (infringement of individual rights such as rightful hatred & rightful consequences). Also, there are no laws enforcing uncalled peace. There are no laws for disturbing uncalled peace neither. There are laws regarding “rightful & called” peace, but these laws are on the rights being violated & illegal harms being done instead of the mindset (having hatred or such is not subject to laws but only the actions are subject to laws if they are illegal & wrongful instead of being legal & rightful like you hearing a rightful profanity which is legal). There is actually no law on peace at all but just on “regular legal stuffs”. There is a law involving the word peace. There are laws like “breach of the peace” or “disturbing the peace”, but this does not mean having hatred or not (especially rightful hatred & rightful consequences) but about an actual illegal action (not subject to legal actions) & illegal harm (not subject to legal harms) being done. Quoting from Google, “modern authority defines a breach of the peace as existing whether harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person or his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance”. Harm on person or property only. No law on peace. When it calls for the situation, hatred, penalization, punishment, suing, etc are entitled.
Nothing morally wrong with promoting hatred when it is the fact & rightful consequence, not to mention being legal. Also, there is nothing wrong with false identity or profanity when you deserved such morally, not to mention being legal anyway. Also, it is a right to gloss over something when running into such, both morally & legally. One should not have to restrain himself neither morally nor legally when running into such. It’s his right. It is not disorderly. It’s a right to feel, express, respond.
Last edited:
