Debbiejo, your window-caressing nature aside, continue posting dumb one liners to me in multiple threads and I will report you.
Originally posted by Wonderer
So why do you then reply to the posts of someone who lacks brainpower in your opinion?
Because I am trying to discover from where you derive these points of view.
Originally posted by Wonderer
Anyway, anger have never caused any good. Imagine if that black Woman (how racist of you) rather remained calm, while most people would've imagined that she would've been angry say at an insult at her...imagine what kind of an inspiring impression she would've left in the minds of people.Peace to you, my angry friend, I'll chant for you. good bye.
I was referring to Rosa Parks, some intelligence you have. She's pretty inspirational you know?
Also, there was nothing racist about what I said.
You are sitting there saying anger has never caused any good, when you only need look at world history to see that it has.
-AC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Anger is a term for the emotional aspect of aggression, as a basic aspect of the stress response in animals whereby a perceived aggravating stimulus "provokes" a counterresponse which is likewise aggravating and threatening of violence. Very mild types of anger are typically described as "distaste," "displeasure", or "irritation," while "rage" refers to an extreme degree of anger associated with a loss of calmness or discipline (in the case of human conduct).
AC, are you an animal or just undisciplined in your intellect?
Buddhism presents a quite different view on emotions like anger. Anger is defined here as: "being unable to bear the object, or the intention to cause harm to the object". Anger is seen as aversion with a stronger exaggeration, and is listed as one of the five hindrances. "Righteous anger" does not exist in Buddhism, instead, one may need to behave wrathful in some instances, however, this should actually be done while remaining emotionally calm inside - like a good actor so to speak.In Christianity, causeless, excessive, or protracted anger is sinful (Matt. 5:22; Col. 3:8), and unbridled wrath is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. The Bible warns "do not let the sun go down on your anger" (Eph. 4:26), that is, do not let feelings of anger last so long as to become sinful. There is, however, what is commonly referred to as "righteous anger," as demonstrated by Jesus when he made a whip and cleared out the merchants in the Temple (John 2:13-16).
Originally posted by Wonderer
AC, are you an animal or just undisciplined in your intellect?
Stealing your debate, which is based off a subjective religion, from Wikipedia makes you look more stupid than anyone or anything.
Posting two stolen paragraphs of buddhist and christian reasoning as to why anger is bad does not make your argument any less stupid.
Anger has factually, objectively led to good things. Whether you like anger or not is up to you, but to deny this is like denying there's a moon.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stealing your debate, which is based off a subjective religion, from Wikipedia makes you look more stupid than anyone or anything.Posting two stolen paragraphs of buddhist and christian reasoning as to why anger is bad does not make your argument any less stupid.
Anger has factually, objectively led to good things. Whether you like anger or not is up to you, but to deny this is like denying there's a moon.
-AC
Whatever. 😬
Anger, in its correct place, is vital to a healthy society. To try and stiufle the ability of such expression would be very harmful both to the psyche of the individual and the statr of people as a whole.
Like anything, it can be taken too far, but a blanket dictum against it, as in the start of this thread, is not only impractical, it is also unhelpful.
It was also incredibily patronising.
Saying that art has never made a contribution to society... that was just dumb.
Re: Peace
Originally posted by Wonderer
Remember, to be angry is like holding on to a hot coal in your bare hands: you are the one getting burned.
That is a quote by Buddha. ''Being angry is like holding a hot coal in your hand with the intention of throwing it at someone else; you're the one getting burned''
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If it were not for anger, there would be a lot more suffering.
Im sorry, but I fail to see the logic here.
That is like saying, if there wasnt for hate, there would be more suffering.
When someone is angry, thats one time they don't think or act rationally. How exactly is that productive?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Im sorry, but I fail to see the logic here.That is like saying, if there wasnt for hate, there would be more suffering.
When someone is angry, thats one time they don't think or act rationally. How exactly is that productive?
People who are unjustly treated feel anger. This mobilises them to attempt to rectify the situation. If they did not feel anger, there would be no feeling of oppression.
So it's nothing like saying 'That is like saying, if there wasnt for hate, there would be more suffering.'
You can be angry and rational, completely. Anger does not equal the total loss of all rationalising faculties. It's merely a propellant.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
When someone is angry, thats one time they don't think or act rationally. How exactly is that productive?
Ticks and Leeches. That's how. You'll get the reference I'm sure, and once you do you'll understand why suggesting anger isn't productive is silly.
For someone who claims to love metal music, I find it extremely confusing that you say anger isn't productive.
-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
People who are unjustly treated feel anger. This mobilises them to attempt to rectify the situation. If they did not feel anger, there would be no feeling of oppression.So it's nothing like saying 'That is like saying, if there wasnt for hate, there would be more suffering.'
You can be angry and rational, completely. Anger does not equal the total loss of all rationalising faculties. It's merely a propellant.
Not being angry, does not mean ignorance. Just because someone choses not to be angry, does not mean that they automatically lose the conciousness to what is happening to them.
As for the example, take the monks (and great number of people) of Tibet. They are trained themselves not to be angry - that is their relgion. Are you saying that they are not aware that they are being opressed by Chinese?
Lack of anger is understanding of what is happening, and thus rational solution to getting out of it, by the means other than hate.
Anger produces hate, so techically my statement above about the hate was relevant.