northpolarbear
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 260
- 14
- 26
Whether something could have or would have occured if some way or not is irrelevant to how the blame 100% only goes to the culprits.
The victim of a wrongfulness has 100% entitlement of rightful hatred against the culprits regardless of what the victim could have done & he shouldn't have to.
So, I am talking logical hatred & illogical hatred here. It is logical to feel hatred as a cause & effect upon something bad for you (by how you feel, see, value) happening. It is illogical to feel hatred when nothing happens or something bad for you penalizes you because you did something wrong.
If you want to include the illogical hatred into the logical hatred by not caring about whether whatever happens to you is a rightful penalization against you doing something wrong or not, it is still simple. Then, I am talking proper hatred & improper hatred. This is a matter of cause & effect with the right to the entitlement to feel & reflect upon something bad for you.
The victim should not have to go through such. If someone else violates the victim, then that someone else is hated instead. The hatred is proper if something bad for you happens; it is a cause & effect; you are entitled to how you feel & respond to it. The hatred is improper is nothing happens or something happens to penalize you doing something wrong. I am just handling the general notion aside from the appropriate degree or type of punishment. The hatred is either logical or illogical, proper or improper. In any case, the hatred is entitled when something bad happens to you; it is a right to a cause & effect.
I came across some ridiculous bullshitters claiming that they should be immune from hatred after doing something wrong. They claimed as if there are some equations or factors that can cancel out rightful hatred or take away the right to the entitlement of feeling & responding legitimately with hatred as a matter of direct reflection upon something.
There is no such convenient right nor power to evasion from the victim’s hatred. You feel what you feel. It's legitimate, natural, consequential, valid, entitled, logical. The only important thing is whether the hatred is rightful (against something wronged that you should not have to go through) or an illogical hatred when nothing happened.
The only important thing is the legitimacy. The hatred itself is entitled as a matter of you having no right or power to not make someone feel hatred upon something. If something happened to cause a response of hatred, it is logical. It is a simple cause & effect. The victim doesn’t care about you. The victim shouldn’t have to go through your whatever. As a simple cause & effect, the victim feels a logical rightful hatred. If nothing happened but you are feeling hatred on that nothing, it is illogical.
There is hardly a case for an illogical hatred. An example of illogical hatred is you feeling hatred or repulsion about facing a rightful consequence & a rightful hatred after you did something wrong. Nothing happened here that should make you feel hatred. You should meet your rightful hatred & rightful consequence when you did something wrong.
Hypocrisy, setting, situation or whatever is irrelevant. The victim is rightfully legitimately entitled to the hatred “anyway”. If the victim did or does such things to someone else? Then the new victim is rightfully legitimately entitled to the old victim as well. This is very easy & simple. There is no canceling out the hatred or anything. There is no equation that can somehow take away the entitlement of the hatred. The only thing important is whether the hatred is a rightful (legitimate) response or it isn’t. If you did something wrongful with your want, your problem, your greed against a victim, then the hatred is rightful, legitimate regardless of anything.
If the victim did or does such wrongful act as well, also rightfully hated by the new victim. There is no case where the hatred or the entitlement to hatred cancels out. The reality & the logic are not that convenient around hatred “rightfully entitled” properly & logically. The real world is a mess with feeling, response, rightful entitlements. They are still rightfully legitimately entitled to hatred when they are harmed “regardless of anything”. Logical natural legitimate response. They do not lose that entitlement & rightfulness regardless of anything.
Whether you do something anyway, because of whatever, or not has nothing to do with the victim rightfully legitimately responding & feeling hatred anyway. Such is a natural response entitled to feel. It is a right. It is a reflection. Just because you want to avoid such doesn’t mean the entitlement for the victim to feel legitimately is void; it is still valid. Your inconvenience has nothing to do with the victim. You have no right nor power to make the victim not feel the legitimate rightful response. You do something with your want that the victim should not have to be involved? The victim is harmed, bothered, involved in any way by you because of your want? You naturally get a hatred. It is a rightful legitimate response that is felt. That feeling is entitled. It is logical & valid. It doesn’t get cancel out regardless of whatever. There is no equation that can take away that entitlement. It is a response & feeling you have no right nor power to violate. It is logical, natural, legitimate. It’s a right, a simple reflection entitled.
Rightful or not, hatred is an entitled feeling & response that you have no right nor power to violate aside from some hatred being logical & proper anyway. I was just speaking for the right to feel hatred. As for the other rightful consequences like being sued, it’s a separate topic, but it should & would happen.
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.
What you want (what you want to have or what you want to see) is irrelevant. You telling someone what to do is wrongful aside from obviously clearly rejected & not given a shit. A hatred is rightfully entitled; whether to pursue is each's own call; I happen to pursue which is legitimate & only up to my own free will 100%.
Blaming self when the culpability is on the opponent is wrong & the blame is 100% on the opponent. Blaming self when the culpability is on the opponent is wrong aside from how you can do better while seeing things straight. Also, even if you can’t do better unless you have to see the blame wrongfully, that is picking profit over rightfulness. It is not legitimate; it is not a should. It is not even a would nor a want. The blame goes 100% only to the culprit. The victim “should not have to” go through your wrongful act. The victim “should not have to” stop or prevent such. Of course, even while seeing things straight how the blame 100% directly goes to the opponent, you can stop or prevent such (or do better). This is not a matter of thinking in a different perspective. There is no perspective. This is a matter of fact. Either something “should be dumped” on the victim or it “should not”. This is not a matter of would or want (aside from such not being would nor want anyway). This is a matter of rightful entitlement & what the rightful state is. Since placing the blame on the victim “any amount” is claiming as if the victim “should” go through such when it should not be any of the victim’s business, it is not a different thinking but just plain “wrong” claim. The blame is 100% only on the opponent. As for the victim, he can work better to stop or to prevent such culpability while setting the blame straight rightfully. Also, the same logic goes even if the culprits failed to establish its wrongful act. This is not only for when the culprits succeed its wrongful act. Whether succeeding or failing, the culprits should not do a wrongful act anyway; it should not be made the victim’s business at all anyway whether you succeed or not. The blame goes 100% only to the culprits. Doing a wrongful act & making a wrongful act possible (in terms of preventing or stopping) are 2 different concepts aside from how the blame for the wrongful act “itself” goes to the act itself alone, not what’s attached to it such as making it possible. The blame for a wrongful act (not for making it possible) goes 100% only to the culprits & culpability. On top of it, obviously, you can hate both the culprits for doing the wrongful act itself (hatred for the wrongful act itself) & hate the accomplices for not stopping or preventing the wrongful act (hatred for making the wrongful act possible, a separate concept & a separate act). You can hate them both. Also, this is a matter of setting the blames correctly. The blame for the act goes 100% only to the culprits aside from how you can hate them both anyway. That is rightful, legitimate, entitled, logical by who should go through what. It is a matter of rightful hatred & rightful consequence following it logically.
The victim of a wrongfulness has 100% entitlement of rightful hatred against the culprits regardless of what the victim could have done & he shouldn't have to.
So, I am talking logical hatred & illogical hatred here. It is logical to feel hatred as a cause & effect upon something bad for you (by how you feel, see, value) happening. It is illogical to feel hatred when nothing happens or something bad for you penalizes you because you did something wrong.
If you want to include the illogical hatred into the logical hatred by not caring about whether whatever happens to you is a rightful penalization against you doing something wrong or not, it is still simple. Then, I am talking proper hatred & improper hatred. This is a matter of cause & effect with the right to the entitlement to feel & reflect upon something bad for you.
The victim should not have to go through such. If someone else violates the victim, then that someone else is hated instead. The hatred is proper if something bad for you happens; it is a cause & effect; you are entitled to how you feel & respond to it. The hatred is improper is nothing happens or something happens to penalize you doing something wrong. I am just handling the general notion aside from the appropriate degree or type of punishment. The hatred is either logical or illogical, proper or improper. In any case, the hatred is entitled when something bad happens to you; it is a right to a cause & effect.
I came across some ridiculous bullshitters claiming that they should be immune from hatred after doing something wrong. They claimed as if there are some equations or factors that can cancel out rightful hatred or take away the right to the entitlement of feeling & responding legitimately with hatred as a matter of direct reflection upon something.
There is no such convenient right nor power to evasion from the victim’s hatred. You feel what you feel. It's legitimate, natural, consequential, valid, entitled, logical. The only important thing is whether the hatred is rightful (against something wronged that you should not have to go through) or an illogical hatred when nothing happened.
The only important thing is the legitimacy. The hatred itself is entitled as a matter of you having no right or power to not make someone feel hatred upon something. If something happened to cause a response of hatred, it is logical. It is a simple cause & effect. The victim doesn’t care about you. The victim shouldn’t have to go through your whatever. As a simple cause & effect, the victim feels a logical rightful hatred. If nothing happened but you are feeling hatred on that nothing, it is illogical.
There is hardly a case for an illogical hatred. An example of illogical hatred is you feeling hatred or repulsion about facing a rightful consequence & a rightful hatred after you did something wrong. Nothing happened here that should make you feel hatred. You should meet your rightful hatred & rightful consequence when you did something wrong.
Hypocrisy, setting, situation or whatever is irrelevant. The victim is rightfully legitimately entitled to the hatred “anyway”. If the victim did or does such things to someone else? Then the new victim is rightfully legitimately entitled to the old victim as well. This is very easy & simple. There is no canceling out the hatred or anything. There is no equation that can somehow take away the entitlement of the hatred. The only thing important is whether the hatred is a rightful (legitimate) response or it isn’t. If you did something wrongful with your want, your problem, your greed against a victim, then the hatred is rightful, legitimate regardless of anything.
If the victim did or does such wrongful act as well, also rightfully hated by the new victim. There is no case where the hatred or the entitlement to hatred cancels out. The reality & the logic are not that convenient around hatred “rightfully entitled” properly & logically. The real world is a mess with feeling, response, rightful entitlements. They are still rightfully legitimately entitled to hatred when they are harmed “regardless of anything”. Logical natural legitimate response. They do not lose that entitlement & rightfulness regardless of anything.
Whether you do something anyway, because of whatever, or not has nothing to do with the victim rightfully legitimately responding & feeling hatred anyway. Such is a natural response entitled to feel. It is a right. It is a reflection. Just because you want to avoid such doesn’t mean the entitlement for the victim to feel legitimately is void; it is still valid. Your inconvenience has nothing to do with the victim. You have no right nor power to make the victim not feel the legitimate rightful response. You do something with your want that the victim should not have to be involved? The victim is harmed, bothered, involved in any way by you because of your want? You naturally get a hatred. It is a rightful legitimate response that is felt. That feeling is entitled. It is logical & valid. It doesn’t get cancel out regardless of whatever. There is no equation that can take away that entitlement. It is a response & feeling you have no right nor power to violate. It is logical, natural, legitimate. It’s a right, a simple reflection entitled.
Rightful or not, hatred is an entitled feeling & response that you have no right nor power to violate aside from some hatred being logical & proper anyway. I was just speaking for the right to feel hatred. As for the other rightful consequences like being sued, it’s a separate topic, but it should & would happen.
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.
What you want (what you want to have or what you want to see) is irrelevant. You telling someone what to do is wrongful aside from obviously clearly rejected & not given a shit. A hatred is rightfully entitled; whether to pursue is each's own call; I happen to pursue which is legitimate & only up to my own free will 100%.
Blaming self when the culpability is on the opponent is wrong & the blame is 100% on the opponent. Blaming self when the culpability is on the opponent is wrong aside from how you can do better while seeing things straight. Also, even if you can’t do better unless you have to see the blame wrongfully, that is picking profit over rightfulness. It is not legitimate; it is not a should. It is not even a would nor a want. The blame goes 100% only to the culprit. The victim “should not have to” go through your wrongful act. The victim “should not have to” stop or prevent such. Of course, even while seeing things straight how the blame 100% directly goes to the opponent, you can stop or prevent such (or do better). This is not a matter of thinking in a different perspective. There is no perspective. This is a matter of fact. Either something “should be dumped” on the victim or it “should not”. This is not a matter of would or want (aside from such not being would nor want anyway). This is a matter of rightful entitlement & what the rightful state is. Since placing the blame on the victim “any amount” is claiming as if the victim “should” go through such when it should not be any of the victim’s business, it is not a different thinking but just plain “wrong” claim. The blame is 100% only on the opponent. As for the victim, he can work better to stop or to prevent such culpability while setting the blame straight rightfully. Also, the same logic goes even if the culprits failed to establish its wrongful act. This is not only for when the culprits succeed its wrongful act. Whether succeeding or failing, the culprits should not do a wrongful act anyway; it should not be made the victim’s business at all anyway whether you succeed or not. The blame goes 100% only to the culprits. Doing a wrongful act & making a wrongful act possible (in terms of preventing or stopping) are 2 different concepts aside from how the blame for the wrongful act “itself” goes to the act itself alone, not what’s attached to it such as making it possible. The blame for a wrongful act (not for making it possible) goes 100% only to the culprits & culpability. On top of it, obviously, you can hate both the culprits for doing the wrongful act itself (hatred for the wrongful act itself) & hate the accomplices for not stopping or preventing the wrongful act (hatred for making the wrongful act possible, a separate concept & a separate act). You can hate them both. Also, this is a matter of setting the blames correctly. The blame for the act goes 100% only to the culprits aside from how you can hate them both anyway. That is rightful, legitimate, entitled, logical by who should go through what. It is a matter of rightful hatred & rightful consequence following it logically.
