Forgive, Refuse, or Walk Away

[no1tovote4]

Explain how the statute is exempted from your
apparently unconditional moral stance that all
criminals should be forgiven.

Once again you have confused forgiven with absolved. That I personally would forgive somebody does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions it simply frees me to move on without hatred.

You seem to mean "forgiveness" in the very
restricted sense of not personally resenting.

In the meaning of releasing my hatred, yes. In the meaning of absolving them of responsibility, the two do not coincide in my opinion.

I think there are few if any people who could
live up to this test, and I do not see the benefit
to those who might live up to it. Can you do
any better than "karma"?

What test? It was a statement. I believe that absolution is not the same thing as forgiveness.

Can I do better than Karma? Probably not, in any case the end result is they are dead and I can choose to go on with my life or keep reliving a moment so that I can hate them.

Those that are Christians would believe that they would be sent to hell, those that are Jews would believe that they would go to Sheol, I believe that they would be reborn in punishment. Those that are atheists might believe that they are simply ended. In none of those things is found a way in which continued hatred serves me.

 

[USViking]

That doesn't mean that all Buddhists are also unconditional pacifists. You are presuming again to know what I believe. Buddha told his followers to use their minds and find their Path, and not to dogmatically believe in what he had to say.

Ah, "dogma"- the word always invoked by those who
seek escape from the strictures of their faith, when it
suits them to do so: just call it "dogma"- that means
you can take a pass on it.

My own brother, a Roman Catholic, uses exactly this
strategem as an excuse for disobeying his church's
teachings on the subject of birth control.

I suppose one should be allowed to cherry pick
as much as one wants from religion and philosophy.

Time and energy, the same result can be made without the hatred and no advancement of spirit can be made while nurturing it.

As for energy, I used to be quite a physical specimen,
and I am not too slack now, at the age of 56, still
being able for example, to do over 90 push-ups
in one set.

Speaking from personal experience, I have had many
of my best days in both strength and endurance
(I could run 10 miles as late as my late 30s, although
3.5 is the best I have done in the last 15) when in a
state of anger. I can imagine this state might have
some useful analogue in warfare.

As for time, you are on more solid ground. Even if one
insists that hatred is not necessarily harmful, as I do,
one would have to agree that incessant thoughts
of hatred are time-wasting. But so are any obsessive
thoughts, so it is really obsession rather than hatred
which is the underlying target of this criticism.

You can have a strong aversion to their actions and a strong desire to end it by any means without a personal hatred of them as persons. That you are not at all sure doesn't mean that I am incorrect or that you are right.

It may not be necessary for all combatants to feel
hatred to be effective. Or it may. What I am getting
at is that hatred does not reduce their tactical
effectiveness, and may inhance it.

This is fine, I did not say that you had to follow me. I stated that I would forgive and gave the reasons why I would do so, I don't believe I ever stated that you too had to do so.

I will no longer belabor the point, and I will
not withdraw it.

I already stated, I would turn him in after I forgave him, that you choose to conveniently ignore such a statement doesn't mean that I didn't make it or didn't mean it. If the guard was not going to die, as in made his confession on his death bed, it wouldn't matter if I hated him the result would be the same. If he made his confession before that the result would also be the same, all without my hatred.

I have not ignored anything you said, but I
may not feel moved to comment on all you say.

The result would not have been the same
if knowledge of your forgiveness allowed the guard
to die in a state of enhanced tranquility.

I do not believe in inflicting physical torment, but
my standards for mental torment are not nearly as
stringent, and concentration camp guards are NOT
excluded under my standards.

I have explained it, that you give it no value doesn't change its value to me.

You had not explained it prior to this post.

You cannot spiritually continue to grow while holding on to this world by reliving that which gives you hate. In order to keep the hatred you must continue to relive it or it will burn out.

I have already agreed obsessional behavior
is wasteful.

Remembering something is not the same as
reliving it. Memories of painful events can
not be suppressed, can they? If these memories
drag feelings of hatred with them, I see no
harm, as long as they are not dwelt upon to
the extent they exclude other, more constructive
and growth-promoting thought.

I would be surprised if I left without anger, I would also be surprised if I kept that anger throughout my life. Anger and hatred are not the same thing.

I should not have substituted the word "anger".

I will repost that section with the correction:

I would be most suprised if any concentration camp
survivors ever went a day without hatred. I would
not blame them a bit.

Seems you would.

I would have to work through my anger and hatred so that I could move on with my own growth and not live in the actions of others.

This is well put.

However, Wiesenthal led a group of what?- hundreds
of people who devoted their lives to hunting down
the holocaust criminals.

I do not say all survivors should have been obliged
to do likewise, but if none had, many more the guilty
would have escaped punishment.

 

[USViking]

Once again you have confused forgiven with absolved. That I personally would forgive somebody does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions it simply frees me to move on without hatred.

In the meaning of releasing my hatred, yes. In the meaning of absolving them of responsibility, the two do not coincide in my opinion.

I was using a broader definition of the word.

I cannot now think of a logical objection to your
conclusions under the more restricted definition.

What test? It was a statement. I believe that absolution is not the same thing as forgiveness.

What I meant was this: that it would be a constant,
daily test to avoid thoughts ranging up to hatred for
anyone who suffered as the Holocaust survivors suffered.

Undoubtedly you and they are more resilient than me,
so perhaps these thoughts of mine are unfounded.

Can I do better than Karma? Probably not, in any case the end result is they are dead and I can choose to go on with my life or keep reliving a moment so that I can hate them.

Fine, I'll not object to this.

Those that are Christians would believe that they would be sent to hell, those that are Jews would believe that they would go to Sheol, I believe that they would be reborn in punishment. Those that are atheists might believe that they are simply ended. In none of those things is found a way in which continued hatred serves me.

Hell, Sheol, and rebirth in punishment strike me as
purposeless torment, which serves nothing, and are
not palatable to me.

 

[no1tovote4]

Ah, "dogma"- the word always invoked by those who
seek escape from the strictures of their faith, when it
suits them to do so: just call it "dogma"- that means
you can take a pass on it.

My own brother, a Roman Catholic, uses exactly this
strategem as an excuse for disobeying his church's
teachings on the subject of birth control.

I suppose one should be allowed to cherry pick
as much as one wants from religion and philosophy.

One difference, the person who first taught The Path tells you not to follow his words as if they are Dogma. I guess that would mean it is part of the Dogma to find your own path....

As for energy, I used to be quite a physical specimen,
and I am not too slack now, at the age of 56, still
being able for example, to do over 90 push-ups
in one set.

That is fine, how are you fit spritually?

Speaking from personal experience, I have had many
of my best days in both strength and endurance
(I could run 10 miles as late as my late 30s, although
3.5 is the best I have done in the last 15) when in a
state of anger. I can imagine this state might have
some useful analogue in warfare.

I have already stated that Anger is not the same as Hatred, there is a reason that they are two different words.

As for time, you are on more solid ground. Even if one
insists that hatred is not necessarily harmful, as I do,
one would have to agree that incessant thoughts
of hatred are time-wasting. But so are any obsessive
thoughts, so it is really obsession rather than hatred
which is the underlying target of this criticism.

It is also the arrest of growth that goes with the obsession.

It may not be necessary for all combatants to feel
hatred to be effective. Or it may. What I am getting
at is that hatred does not reduce their tactical
effectiveness, and may inhance it.

And I have not told you not to use it, I have simply stated that I would not. I have not put myself forward as the standard by which to measure yourself, you simply assumed that I had.

I will no longer belabor the point, and I will
not withdraw it.

Okay.

I have not ignored anything you said, but I
may not feel moved to comment on all you say.

But when you state something opposite of what I have said and attribute it to me it shows that you did ignore something that I said.

The result would not have been the same
if knowledge of your forgiveness allowed the guard
to die in a state of enhanced tranquility.

It would be the same, why must I wish him to die without tranquility? Why must I display the same emotion and in the same way as you do?

I do not believe in inflicting physical torment, but
my standards for mental torment are not nearly as
stringent, and concentration camp guards are NOT
excluded under my standards.

Adding or subtracting from his torment does not change the outcome one way or another, it may give personal satisfaction if you have harbored hatred, but it is really valueless in the end. Either way he has died.

You had not explained it prior to this post.

I had, re-read. I posted that time and energy spent on hatred would be better spent in spiritual growth.

I have already agreed obsessional behavior
is wasteful.

And I agreed as well.

Remembering something is not the same as
reliving it. Memories of painful events can
not be suppressed, can they? If these memories
drag feelings of hatred with them, I see no
harm, as long as they are not dwelt upon to
the extent they exclude other, more constructive
and growth-promoting thought.

Not suppressed, but in order to hold the hatred hot reliving them is necessary. It becomes necessary to dwell on them to the exclusion of other things, otherwise the hatred and anger is not nearly as hot as it would need to be. The kind of hatred that burns is constantly fed. Much like a smell or a taste emotion fades in memory unless one relives the moment. Remembering is not reliving, at least not in the way I am trying to say. In order to feed the anger it must be constantly revisited to keep the memory fresh.

I should not have substituted the word "anger".

I will repost that section with the correction:

I would be most suprised if any concentration camp
survivors ever went a day without hatred. I would
not blame them a bit.

Nor would I. I can understand those that harbor hatred, I do not judge their hatred. If you notice my original post I simply stated that I would forgive, not that any prisoner in my place must forgive. I gave no orders to anyone nor passed judgement on them either.

Seems you would.

See above.

I suspect that I am human, but it would not change the reasoning of the moment to me. I would forgive him.

This is well put.

However, Wiesenthal led a group of what?- hundreds
of people who devoted their lives to hunting down
the holocaust criminals.

I do not say all survivors should have been obliged
to do likewise, but if none had, many more the guilty
would have escaped punishment.

Thank you.

I would likely use the hunt for them as one way to work through the anger and hatred and to help others to live with theirs. It would help me to know that I brought justice to them so that others might be able to move past the actions of others and be able to move on to a new Path rather than the circular Path of hatred.

 

[no1tovote4]

One other way that holding the hatred can mean to you...

In the story in the first post. Weisenthal stated that all his life he was haunted by his decision. Would I have been haunted by mine?

 

[no1tovote4]

Time for me to hit the hay...

I'll pick up this thread later if you still have interest in my thoughts on the subject.

 

[no1tovote4]

I was using a broader definition of the word.

I cannot now think of a logical objection to your
conclusions under the more restricted definition.

I figured you must be. I was wondering how it could be so objectionable until I realized we must be using differing meanings for the same word. Mine is a more Eastern meaning...

What I meant was this: that it would be a constant,
daily test to avoid thoughts ranging up to hatred for
anyone who suffered as the Holocaust survivors suffered.

Undoubtedly you and they are more resilient than me,
so perhaps these thoughts of mine are unfounded.

It would and likely I would fail at times. I might even be angry at the time I would tell him I forgave him, but in time it would become reality for me as I would work towards it constantly.

Fine, I'll not object to this.

Cool.

Hell, Sheol, and rebirth in punishment strike me as
purposeless torment, which serves nothing, and are
not palatable to me.

Rebirth in punishment is a way of teaching. That life is no more permanent than this one and rebirth would again come. Hell and Sheol seem way too permanent for me as well, but that is what their beliefs would be.

 

[USViking]

One difference, the person who first taught The Path tells you not to follow his words as if they are Dogma. I guess that would mean it is part of the Dogma to find your own path....

How, then, about the apparently stronger term "doctrine".

My brother essentially says "dogma" may be flouted,
but "doctrne" may not be flouted.

Does Buddhism contend there is nothing which would
fall under the description of morally imperative?

That is fine, how are you fit spritually?

You tell me: I love my family and friends, and I
have never put a violent hand on anyone since
growing up, one wrestling match without bruises
or bloodshed excepted.

I have recurring dreams of seeing, from a distance,
WMD mushroom clouds rising over our cities, and
I hate the people who have so cursed my dreams,
who have cursed so many much worse than me.

I have already stated that Anger is not the same as Hatred, there is a reason that they are two different words.

I am not here going to edit myself. My feelings of "anger"
may have neared "hatred', but I am not going to go as far
as to equate them with hatred.

Nevertheless, I used the word "analogue" advisedly-
If the feelings of anger I felt could give me such strength,
feelings of hatred might well give a soldier even more.

It is also the arrest of growth that goes with the obsession.

Yes.

And I have not told you not to use it, I have simply stated that I would not. I have not put myself forward as the standard by which to measure yourself, you simply assumed that I had.

Well now, a practical or moral stance should have
some force beyond the individual, shouldn't it?

But when you state something opposite of what I have said and attribute it to me it shows that you did ignore something that I said.

I may have misread, forgotten, or misunderstood something,
but I did not ignore anything.

I am tired of scrolling. Please tell me how I have
misattributed.

I see I am about halfway through my reply to your post,
and it is getting late.

I'll be back to finish later.

 

[USViking]

It would be the same, why must I wish him to die without tranquility? Why must I display the same emotion and in the same way as you do?

Since your standards of behavior are personal,
autonomous, and do not harm, I would leave
you to them.

Adding or subtracting from his torment does not change the outcome one way or another, it may give personal satisfaction if you have harbored hatred, but it is really valueless in the end. Either way he has died.

Again, this is personal and autonomous, right?

And the issue to me is not his death, but his
condition during his last moments of life.

I had, re-read. I posted that time and energy spent on hatred would be better spent in spiritual growth.

I keep scrolling, and missing this, aside from
a refernce to energy in post #9. I'll take your
word for it, though.

I would still like to know where I have attributed
to you the opposite of what you said.

Not suppressed, but in order to hold the hatred hot reliving them is necessary. It becomes necessary to dwell on them to the exclusion of other things, otherwise the hatred and anger is not nearly as hot as it would need to be. The kind of hatred that burns is constantly fed. Much like a smell or a taste emotion fades in memory unless one relives the moment. Remembering is not reliving, at least not in the way I am trying to say. In order to feed the anger it must be constantly revisited to keep the memory fresh.

You are describing obsession.

I am describing memories and their attendant
emotions, including hatred, which are permanently
grafted into a person's mind, which inevitably
surface, and which can be dealt with without
falling into obsessivion.

Nor would I. I can understand those that harbor hatred, I do not judge their hatred. If you notice my original post I simply stated that I would forgive, not that any prisoner in my place must forgive. I gave no orders to anyone nor passed judgement on them either.

I suspect that I am human, but it would not change the reasoning of the moment to me. I would forgive him.

Thank you.

I would likely use the hunt for them as one way to work through the anger and hatred and to help others to live with theirs. It would help me to know that I brought justice to them so that others might be able to move past the actions of others and be able to move on to a new Path rather than the circular Path of hatred.

Alright- I am satisfied with this.

 

[5stringJeff]

Numerous people, and groups of people (including all Nazis have been of negative worth, and as badly as me, you, and Wiesenthal may have sinned, none of our sins bear the least comparison to the sins commited by the dying Nazi in this vignetette.

I do not think there is any moral imperative to forgive such sins, and Wiesenthal did not forgive them, although he did not express himself as forcefully as I would like to have.

I would disagree with you here. All of us are guilty of sin, and it doesn't matter what specific sin we commit, we are all guilty. See James 2:10-11: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." So the Nazi guard, the guy who cheats on his wife, the person who uses coarse language - all are equally guilty of sin. But all have been accorded the chance to forgive, and all have been given the imperative to forgive (see Matthew 6:14-15: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.")

In a similar vien, I would harbor no thoughts of forgiveness for the members of present international terrorism. I suppose it does not harm, though, if others do wish to forgive them, as long as this forgiving nature does go so far as to spare the earthly life of any one of them.

Yet again, we have the responsibility to forgive even those terrorists who have killed Americans. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do, but it is required of us.

 

[5stringJeff]

How anyone can say that a mass murderer's worth is greater than the transgressions suffered by his victims, or that love is any defence against such people is beyond me.

These two posters are not expressing true love and forgiveness, they are expressing a perverted caricature of them.

True love and forgiveness means that we absolve the debtor of any and all debts against us. We relinquish our right to take revenge or "get even" with that person, regardless of what we think that person's relative worth is.

 

[Annie]

I would disagree with you here. All of us are guilty of sin, and it doesn't matter what specific sin we commit, we are all guilty. See James 2:10-11: "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." So the Nazi guard, the guy who cheats on his wife, the person who uses coarse language - all are equally guilty of sin. But all have been accorded the chance to forgive, and all have been given the imperative to forgive (see Matthew 6:14-15: "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.")



Yet again, we have the responsibility to forgive even those terrorists who have killed Americans. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do, but it is required of us.

Jeff, so all sins are equal?

 

[5stringJeff]

Jeff, so all sins are equal?

In the eyes of God, yes.

 

[Annie]

In the eyes of God, yes.

Ok we agree to disagree. I don't think a bin Laden or a Nixon is held to the same standard as a 16 year old that plagerizes. My God has layers.

 

[no1tovote4]

How, then, about the apparently stronger term "doctrine".

My brother essentially says "dogma" may be flouted,
but "doctrne" may not be flouted.

Does Buddhism contend there is nothing which would
fall under the description of morally imperative?

Other than to show compassion? Not as you might see it, it is one of the reasons why it takes years to find faith in Buddhism as opposed to converting in seconds. A respect for life is imperative and compassion cannot exist without it, how one shows that respect can differ immensely. And understanding that life is suffering is also one of the Truths that will not be denied.

There are many Buddhists that will not eat meat, but quite a few that will. One of the major tenets would be that each will find their own Path, that just because somebody is on a different Path does not necessarily mean that they are lost.

There are some Buddhists that will take the Dhammapada and believe that it is the only Path, there are some that believe that Tibetan Buddhism is the answer. Just as in any religion there are some that follow the words of the Buddha without question, but one works at Buddhism. Question everything is also one of the tenets in my form of Buddhism, and I do.

If you believe that all Buddhists are pacifists then how would you explain the Zen Warriors?

You tell me: I love my family and friends, and I
have never put a violent hand on anyone since
growing up, one wrestling match without bruises
or bloodshed excepted.

I have recurring dreams of seeing, from a distance,
WMD mushroom clouds rising over our cities, and
I hate the people who have so cursed my dreams,
who have cursed so many much worse than me.

I cannot tell you how fit you are spiritually, it is one of the questions that you would have to answer. Does nurturing a hate help you? You have suggested ways in which you believe it does. I believe that right thought brings right action. That the reason you do something has more meaning than the end result. That one can do the exact same action while causing themselves spiritual harm, and conversely immense value depending on the reason of the action.

You probably judge differently, this means only that you have chosen a different Path. I am not attempting to nudge you onto that path, but to explain my own beliefs. Years of struggle, training, meditation, introspection, studying have brought me to my place and it will be difficult to explain all of my beliefs to what appears your satisfaction in a few hours on a message board.

I am not here going to edit myself. My feelings of "anger"
may have neared "hatred', but I am not going to go as far
as to equate them with hatred.

Nevertheless, I used the word "analogue" advisedly-
If the feelings of anger I felt could give me such strength,
feelings of hatred might well give a soldier even more.

If the ends justify the means then you may be right, but that is not within my belief system. It is the means that make the difference. The end result can be the same but without right thought it can be devastating spiritually.

Yes.





Well now, a practical or moral stance should have
some force beyond the individual, shouldn't it?

It does, either you learn or you do not. All persons will at some point reach Nirvana, has your Path led you closer or further? Have you lengthened your journey? It is your individual choices that make the difference.

I may have misread, forgotten, or misunderstood something,
but I did not ignore anything.

I am tired of scrolling. Please tell me how I have
misattributed.

All of that was corrected with further elaboration and belaboring this point will not further the conversation.

I see I am about halfway through my reply to your post,
and it is getting late.

I'll be back to finish later.

Just as I was....

 

[no1tovote4]

Since your standards of behavior are personal,
autonomous, and do not harm, I would leave
you to them.

Thank you.

Again, this is personal and autonomous, right?

And the issue to me is not his death, but his
condition during his last moments of life.

I can understand a person that would wish him to suffer more in his last moments, and can even understand why he walked away without answering. However his decision haunted him throughout his lifetime. Was it spiritually helpful for him to have that soldier die in further torment?

I keep scrolling, and missing this, aside from
a refernce to energy in post #9. I'll take your
word for it, though.

It was probably the only reference before the question came again. As I said, there is no reason to belabor the point as further clarification in later posts resolved that issue.

I would still like to know where I have attributed
to you the opposite of what you said.

As above, all points were later clarified and it would be unnecessary.

You are describing obsession.

I am describing memories and their attendant
emotions, including hatred, which are permanently
grafted into a person's mind, which inevitably
surface, and which can be dealt with without
falling into obsessivion.

Emotion in memories dissolves over time, much like taste and smell. In order to keep it fresh and hot so that a soldier, or a person can work with the hatred to kill etc as you have described the memories would have to be worked with, repeated, dwelt upon. This type of energy and emotional stress would be better spent elsewhere in my opinion. For me negative energy is not helpful, just stressful.

Alright- I am satisfied with this.

Cool.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread so I'm not sure where everyone stands on this issue. Here's my personal journey with forgiveness.


My stepdad, Bob, physically, sexually and psychologically abused three of my brothers and me for years. When I was 13 I realized he was abusing my brothers, and I finally got the courage to tell my mother. He went to jail for two years............ however, my mother kept in touch with him during all that time and then let him come back after he got out. Imagine how life was in our house after being betrayed like this.

I carried around a lot of hate and anger for about 10 years.........to the point where I had ulcers that threatened to kill me and did put me in the hospital and on medication before I was 18. My doctor said I had to change my outlook on life or I would die.

A lot of people said I needed to forgive my mom and Bob. I couldn't, can't and won't. No need. What happened has shaped who I am and I'm happy to be the person I am. I have no idea who I would be today if I had tried the forgiveness path.

I believe, that to forgive, one truly does need to feel it in their hearts. Just saying it and wishing it will not change what we truly feel.

So.......I couldn't forgive, but I did have to change something. One day I had an epiphany.............I finally realized that my anger took too much energy to maintain......energy I needed to channel elsewhere.........energy needed to heal myself........energy to take care of myself more than anything.

Without focusing on the "forgiveness" aspect, I was able to release my connection to the situation which freed up energy that has helped me to become not only successful and happy, but healthy.

My take on anger and hatred...........use the energy it creates to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished and then release it. Then use the freed up energy on some other goal. I like to think of it as changing my spark plugs.

And what about the person committing the transgression you might ask? I say.....let them figure out how to deal with it, but I will no longer invest energy in the situation.

 

[Nuc]

That's a very sad story, kurtsprincess. Surely the course you have taken is healthiest for you. It's difficult to forgive strangers or aquaintances, but betrayal on this scale in a family is almost impossible. Luckily your psychological makeup allowed you to move on anyway.

 

[kurtsprincess]

That's a very sad story, kurtsprincess. Surely the course you have taken is healthiest for you. It's difficult to forgive strangers or aquaintances, but betrayal on this scale in a family is almost impossible. Luckily your psychological makeup allowed you to move on anyway.

Thank you Nuc for the encouragement.

It was sad.......but necessary on some level.......so that I could become the person I am. I often think of it in the same terms that I do my height (I wish I were taller, but I'm not........I wish the abuse hadn't happened, but it did). Being short gives me a certain perspective on the world (and a crick in the neck sometimes); the betrayals taught me how to survive and not let negative emotions dwell in my heart or soul.

I really thought for a long time that I wouldn't be able to move beyond. I thank my creator and all my guardians for my lessons and for the ability to realize that one can survive betrayal by those who we love and trust. And, that I can do it without thinking I have to somehow take care of, or absolve, someone else in order to do it.

Again, thank you.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I am not at all sure we can effectively defend ourselves
to the death without some strong aversion to our
opponents, call it "hate", "loathing", or wharever.

The desire to survive is another defense mechanism. Another is commitment to duty. Neither needs to be based upon hate, fear, loathing or whatever.

I asked my husband, a soldier, if he felt that he needed to "hate" or "loath" someone to justify doing whatever it takes to defend himself, his family or his country. He said no. Nothing else. Just a definitive "no".

I must say, I have the same feeling.

Others may feel differently, though.

You still need to explain exactly how justifyable
anger actually harms the person experiencing the emotion.

This wasn't directed to me, but I'm willing to take a shot at it.

Speaking from personal experience.........Justifiable anger harms one if it consumes energy needed for some other function. I do advocate justifiable anger ........ recognize it, use it to accomplish what needs to be done.....Even call upon it when needed........but don't let it consume one's energy to the exclusion of taking care of one's self.