I have examples from my own life where I treated people with decency after they mistreated me, and it ended up changing how they acted toward me in the future.
I also have multiple examples where I came at them with hostility, and that only led to further escalating hostility.
People don’t change the way they act when you “teach them a lesson”. That’s naive.
Sure, the moment I start doing that feel free to take me out. That’s, kinda the whole point. The important part is you remember that it applies to you as well.
If person A acts badly then person B should act badly towards them and then person C should acts badly towards person A and B and person D should act like that towards person A, B and C and so on.
“If person A acts badly, Person B to ∞ act badly in the same manner to person A”.
But I can see the programming failure of the suggested rule as written, as it can be implied that only person B should act upon person A, rather than everyone.
Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
That’s very naive. Your way leads to bad actors doing whatever they want while good actors suffer and are not able to fight back.
That beautiful world you dream of doesn’t exist, never did and never will.
You can still punish people without an eye for an eye.
If a person loses control of their car and kills a pedestrian, an eye for an eye would mean the perpetrator would be killed.
A just legal system would put them in jail, make them pay financial restitution, and suspend their license.
Our actual legal system gives them a slap on the wrist and says don’t do that again
I have examples from my own life where I treated people with decency after they mistreated me, and it ended up changing how they acted toward me in the future.
I also have multiple examples where I came at them with hostility, and that only led to further escalating hostility.
People don’t change the way they act when you “teach them a lesson”. That’s naive.
Counterpoint: Getting rid of the people making others blind makes more of the world see.
That includes you.
Sure, the moment I start doing that feel free to take me out. That’s, kinda the whole point. The important part is you remember that it applies to you as well.
Basically MAD except it’s others keeping others accountable.
You’re advocating for everyone to act that way.
If person A acts badly then person B should act badly towards them and then person C should acts badly towards person A and B and person D should act like that towards person A, B and C and so on.
It’s more of a:
“If person A acts badly, Person B to ∞ act badly in the same manner to person A”.
But I can see the programming failure of the suggested rule as written, as it can be implied that only person B should act upon person A, rather than everyone.