northpolarbear
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 260
- 14
- 26
Regarding bullshits how family shouldn't be hated or punished even after a wrongful act aside from whether really a family or a wishful fake.
This is about when a family does something wrongful to you. It doesn't matter whether they are family or not. You rightfully (legitimately) hate them, punish them, even cut them off if your hatred is big enough so that you care more about cutting them off than losing an irreplaceable relationship.
I should not have to do anything for my family; I don't want to; I would not. I am talking the "actual family". Also, as for the hatred, it's a matter of how big the hatred is against their wrongfulness & how it outweighs the lingering over a relationship that can't be replaced. When the outweighing happens, you cut them off. Even if you don't cut them off, you still hate them anyway. Also, you sue them. That's how the reality is. I should not have to do things I don't want especially for someone else's profit including my personal family.
Whether they are sued or not, they are still hated. Also, I want to (most likely will do that) sue them, punish them, cut them off. Also, whether you cut them off or not, you still hate them anyway & sue them anyway.
Simply put, being family is not a matter of immunity. You still get the hatred rightfully if you do something wrongful. As for the punishment like being sued or cutting off, it is a simple matter of weighing the consequence of what will happen to your relationship vs how much you hate them. If the rightful hatred outweighs, then you cut them off & you punish them. In fact, as for the punishment, you don't even necessarily care about such but could just punish anyway regardless of such. As for cutting off, it's a matter of weighing. I should not have to do something just because they are family. I should not have to forgive them, not cut them off, not hate them, not punish them just because they are family. They are not entitled to such. I am not obligated to such. Aside from setting this rightfulness part straight, such is not even wanted; I wouldn't do such. If they did a wrongful thing & I hate them, then I just punish them. Also, if the hatred is big, I cut them off because the hatred outweighs the lingering over a relationship that can't be placed.
Also, it is ridiculous how some people "not even family" pretend to be family. It is just that "even family" is treated like this. As for them, they are obviously treated like they are: nobodies.
Hatred is a valid entitled right & the only issue is whether it is rightful or wrongful. The same goes for plain repulsion. I include all such when I refer to hatred. Nothing wrong with hatred; it is a valid entitled right. The only issue is whether you hating something is rightful or wrongful.
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.
This is about when a family does something wrongful to you. It doesn't matter whether they are family or not. You rightfully (legitimately) hate them, punish them, even cut them off if your hatred is big enough so that you care more about cutting them off than losing an irreplaceable relationship.
I should not have to do anything for my family; I don't want to; I would not. I am talking the "actual family". Also, as for the hatred, it's a matter of how big the hatred is against their wrongfulness & how it outweighs the lingering over a relationship that can't be replaced. When the outweighing happens, you cut them off. Even if you don't cut them off, you still hate them anyway. Also, you sue them. That's how the reality is. I should not have to do things I don't want especially for someone else's profit including my personal family.
Whether they are sued or not, they are still hated. Also, I want to (most likely will do that) sue them, punish them, cut them off. Also, whether you cut them off or not, you still hate them anyway & sue them anyway.
Simply put, being family is not a matter of immunity. You still get the hatred rightfully if you do something wrongful. As for the punishment like being sued or cutting off, it is a simple matter of weighing the consequence of what will happen to your relationship vs how much you hate them. If the rightful hatred outweighs, then you cut them off & you punish them. In fact, as for the punishment, you don't even necessarily care about such but could just punish anyway regardless of such. As for cutting off, it's a matter of weighing. I should not have to do something just because they are family. I should not have to forgive them, not cut them off, not hate them, not punish them just because they are family. They are not entitled to such. I am not obligated to such. Aside from setting this rightfulness part straight, such is not even wanted; I wouldn't do such. If they did a wrongful thing & I hate them, then I just punish them. Also, if the hatred is big, I cut them off because the hatred outweighs the lingering over a relationship that can't be placed.
Also, it is ridiculous how some people "not even family" pretend to be family. It is just that "even family" is treated like this. As for them, they are obviously treated like they are: nobodies.
Hatred is a valid entitled right & the only issue is whether it is rightful or wrongful. The same goes for plain repulsion. I include all such when I refer to hatred. Nothing wrong with hatred; it is a valid entitled right. The only issue is whether you hating something is rightful or wrongful.
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.
