Treating The Bad Guys Well The morally good thing to do or advancing their cause?

[Little Asterisk 1]

As others have said; this is a very interesting topic, in deed!In my firm belief, when you first approach people you should be nice to them. If you don't want them to judge you, you shouldn't judge them. Even if you know he/she is a bad person, approach him/her (okay, I'm done with this sex changes, I'm going to refer to "it" as "he" ) like you don't know that. Maybe he'll turn out to be just OK.When you've spent enough time with him, however, that you think you've found out enough about him, you're free to make your own fair opinion about weather he's a bad person or not. If he treats you like *BLEEP* and insults you in the public, you obviously won't continue being nice to him. There's no point, since he'll see you're not putting up against him and he'll just continue doing the same things over and over and over again.A slight diversion; don't be to hasty to make a judgement, since the guy may actually turn out to be a pretty good person. And you don't want him to think you're the "bully". It might prove useful to have him as a friend in the future.

[fermin25 3]

There is something named pride. If a guy hits you in the face you have to attack him, less you have no opportunity or you life will have risk. But you don?t have to treat to the bad guys well, I think you are totally bad with this declaration because we can?t accept abuses from another person and respond to these abuses with "good treating" you are totally wrong. We all have pride and we are no dogs to be the slaves of somebody. I think that you are some "abused-guy" the nerd who supports all the abuse in the classroom or the guy who support all the abuse in the neighborhood. The cristian religion said that you have to put the another cheek but you are maybe wrong to let to other people to abuse you in this way. You have to attack and you don?t to be the sheep who is abused by all the world.Please don?t fall in those mistakes dont treat the bad guys well. Treat them like they deserves.

[Harlot 2]

There is something named pride. If a guy hits you in the face you have to attack him, less you have no opportunity or you life will have risk. But you don´t have to treat to the bad guys well, I think you are totally bad with this declaration because we can´t accept abuses from another person and respond to these abuses with "good treating" you are totally wrong. We all have pride and we are no dogs to be the slaves of somebody. I think that you are some "abused-guy" the nerd who supports all the abuse in the classroom or the guy who support all the abuse in the neighborhood. The cristian religion said that you have to put the another cheek but you are maybe wrong to let to other people to abuse you in this way. You have to attack and you don´t to be the sheep who is abused by all the world.
Please don´t fall in those mistakes dont treat the bad guys well. Treat them like they deserves.

I don't know about pride, but I think its called being a man. I know many people will disagree, but I am a strong support of self defense. In order words, violence should be met with violence. A lot of the educated and liberal minded (not that I am or am not liberally minded) people within my community disagree with my stance, but I don't believe in turning the other cheek when you're under attack. If someone knocks you over the head with a bottle, you find a bottle and knock him back over the head. I do agree that there are circumstances where non violence is necessary, but that is usually only so when you are leading others and encouraging violence will lead to more than just your own bloodshed. If you are leading people, you have to take their welfare into consideration and ask yourself if taking the violence route would be worth the cost.

However, I strongly believe in self defense...yes armed self defense. I truly believe that non-violence is only effective when the cameras are rolling and the oppressor is a radical segment of society. It encourages the centrist and non-radical pacifist to get stop being pacifist and speak out. However, if there are no camera around, non-violence is not going to stop you from getting beat down in the streets. You can sing negro spiritual all day, change won't come until you are willing to strike back and pose a threat to the individual or group attacking you. There are two ways to create peace if I am beating you down everyday.

1) You can be non-violence in full view of my friends, family, and associates, and thus persuading them to put pressure me to stop.

2) You can strike back to the extent that I believe that you are willing to die and take me with you.

The quickest way is obviously number two. And in many case your family, friends, and associates will turn a blind eye even when you are doing wrong. They will just say, "hey that's not my business". This is why you have so many women being abused, but yet their boyfriend or husband's friends and family don't say anything about it despite the fact that they know. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were two different efforts going on at once. There was the non-violent movement and the self defense movement. The fact is that people were calling Dr.Luther King a Communist and accused him of attempting to overthrown American until people Malcolm X came along. The black militancy and counter-racist tone coming back black America scared a lot of people. You had people such as Malcolm X talking about "if America doesn't come around, we gonna burn it down" and he had the following to carry that out to a certain extend, even if it would have ended in defeat and slaughter.

The same applies to someone individually harassing you. The more you fight back, the less likely you are to be targeted. When I was in 4th grade, I use to get into fights every week with the same guy. However, I noticed that people respected me for standing up for myself. He didn't just target me, he picked on everyone in the class who he thought was weak. Eventually he stopped messing with me because he knew he was in for a fight...win, lose, or draw. I have always held that mentality. As I grew older I attempted more so to avoid conflict through diplomacy, but once it turned physical then I defended myself by any and all means. When you are defending yourself go on the offensive until the threat is neutralized and don't be afraid to lose and be just as quick to fight the same person again. The person you are defending yourself again can only respect that, you eventually you'll be left along. Every person I have ever fought, as far as I can remember, has befriended me after the conflict.

I am not downing non-violence, I believe people have to decide their own approach. It is something that someone else can't decide for you. Every situation is unique, and you have to make the decision on what is the best strategy to solve the conflict and bring down tensions. There have been times when diplomacy has worked and has been effective, however, every time diplomacy worked the person knew that I was willing to fight. It was more like I am willing to take peace, but I don't mind going to war. The smaller you are, the more you have to make it known that you are capable of defending yourself and that everything is a weapon. Diplomacy is even a weapon. It gives you time to examine your surroundings and see what can be quickly picked up and used to turn the tides, while positioning yourself to get to it unnoticed.
Edited August 3, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[Little Asterisk 1]

I don't know about pride, but I think its called being a man. I know many people will disagree, but I am a strong support of self defense. In order words, violence should be met with violence. A lot of the educated and liberal minded (not that I am or am not liberally minded) people within my community disagree with my stance, but I don't believe in turning the other cheek when you're under attack. If someone knocks you over the head with a bottle, you find a bottle and knock him back over the head. I do agree that there are circumstances where non violence is necessary, but that is usually only so when you are leading others and encouraging violence will lead to more than just your own bloodshed. If you are leading people, you have to take their welfare into consideration and ask yourself if taking the violence route would be worth the cost.
However, I strongly believe in self defense...yes armed self defense. I truly believe that non-violence is only effective when the cameras are rolling and the oppressor is a radical segment of society. It encourages the centrist and non-radical pacifist to get stop being pacifist and speak out. However, if there are no camera around, non-violence is not going to stop you from getting beat down in the streets. You can sing negro spiritual all day, change won't come until you are willing to strike back and pose a threat to the individual or group attacking you. There are two ways to create peace if I am beating you down everyday.

1) You can be non-violence in full view of my friends, family, and associates, and thus persuading them to put pressure me to stop.

2) You can strike back to the extent that I believe that you are willing to die and take me with you.

The quickest way is obviously number two. And in many case your family, friends, and associates will turn a blind eye even when you are doing wrong. They will just say, "hey that's not my business". This is why you have so many women being abused, but yet their boyfriend or husband's friends and family don't say anything about it despite the fact that they know. During the Civil Rights Movement, there were two different efforts going on at once. There was the non-violent movement and the self defense movement. The fact is that people were calling Dr.Luther King a Communist and accused him of attempting to overthrown American until people Malcolm X came along. The black militancy and counter-racist tone coming back black America scared a lot of people. You had people such as Malcolm X talking about "if America doesn't come around, we gonna burn it down" and he had the following to carry that out to a certain extend, even if it would have ended in defeat and slaughter.

The same applies to someone individually harassing you. The more you fight back, the less likely you are to be targeted. When I was in 4th grade, I use to get into fights every week with the same guy. However, I noticed that people respected me for standing up for myself. He didn't just target me, he picked on everyone in the class who he thought was weak. Eventually he stopped messing with me because he knew he was in for a fight...win, lose, or draw. I have always held that mentality. As I grew older I attempted more so to avoid conflict through diplomacy, but once it turned physical then I defended myself by any and all means. When you are defending yourself go on the offensive until the threat is neutralized and don't be afraid to lose and be just as quick to fight the same person again. The person you are defending yourself again can only respect that, you eventually you'll be left along. Every person I have ever fought, as far as I can remember, has befriended me after the conflict.

I am not downing non-violence, I believe people have to decide their own approach. It is something that someone else can't decide for you. Every situation is unique, and you have to make the decision on what is the best strategy to solve the conflict and bring down tensions. There have been times when diplomacy has worked and has been effective, however, every time diplomacy worked the person knew that I was willing to fight. It was more like I am willing to take peace, but I don't mind going to war. The smaller you are, the more you have to make it known that you are capable of defending yourself and that everything is a weapon. Diplomacy is even a weapon. It gives you time to examine your surroundings and see what can be quickly picked up and used to turn the tides, while positioning yourself to get to it unnoticed.

That's exactly my opinion, said in a longer fashion.

You should approach people with a good stance, but if you don't see the same happening with them you obviously are not going to stand still and take that from them. Everywhere around world, bullies act the most brave when they're not getting any resistance. It's easier for them that way!

[mahesh2k 0]

Some of my observation:1. There are type of people who like back *BLEEP*ing (gender isn't issue here). They just want to point the faults of others and want to feel good about that. I don't know their ego rises to top because of it perhaps.2. Then there are people who like to bully others in group or in party. They're scared sheep when they're alone but when in group they take advantage and do all they can to bully, back *BLEEP*ing and bad-mouth others. 3. Another type is which don't bother others but only care for what they are and think. They're into attitude and manipulative mode. These three types of people are quite common and you can't treat single out of these in same way. But over time you'll learn or fail to deal with these types.

[zanzibarjones 1]

The same could be said for good guys. You can motivate people to do anything. If you ever saw Men in Black, Tommy Lee said, "Humans are smart. People, are panicy and dumb"People as individuals can be smart, but people in a group can be lead to act whatever way you persuade them to. It's easier that way.The reason for that is because you have different points of view in one area. The majority then, rules. And usually, instead of being left out, the rest will join in, even if their views are not that of the majority.Bad guys, do what they have learned, you can try to unlearn it, but the thoughts are still there. They always will be. There is NO WAY to remove thoughts, just suppress them. I think it's just like a wild animal. You can teach a wild animal to act a certain way, but eventually, given the right circumstances, it will go back to acting just like a wild animal. Of course you don't want that, but you can not control every situation.

[anwiii 17]

i dunno about all this violence upon violence or cutting off fingers because a person steals.my emotions tell me that some people need to be punished more for their crimes. at the same time however? who should have that right? someone who was pewrsonally affected and a victim to a crime where their emotions are alreaady affected engatively and thus will not use proper judgement? i believe an eye for an eye, but when it comes down to it, sometimes innocent people get wrongly accused and punished. it's the sole reason i don't eblieve in the death penalty. i will never accept or promote the sacrificing of innocent people where a system is in place to punish the real criminals or even make an example out of them as a deterrent.now harlot says he believes in self defense but what he is talking about isn't self defense. what he is CLEARLY talking about is street justive and violence upon violence as an answer to the problems. i cannot disagree more. in los angeles, we had a guy named rodney king makes headlines. this guy was driving too fast and dangerously. could have killed innocent people the way he was driving. whent he police caught up to him and stopped him, rodney was clearly risisting arrest and not following a safe way for the police officers to arrest him. at the same time, some of the police officers took it upon themselves to use excessive force which some people seem to believe in. later on, when certain police officers didn't get the punishment other people thought they deserved, it created a riot in the city of los angeles. i was unaware of what was taking place and was right smack in the middle of it all watching the lakers play basketball at their old arena. so when the game was over, i saw violence i never want to see again and all of it was due to a reaction of the so called street justice people say they believe in. now experiencing this first hand and seeing what street justice leads to and what violence upon violence leads to, i can say without a doubt that it is just plain WRONG. in fact, in most cases, street justice isn't justice at all and just creates more problems to deal with in the future.

[mamer 0]

What about talking about good actions and bad actions instead of talking about good guys and bad guys? We don't really know if a guy is good or bad but we can tell a bad action from a good one.Treating bad actions with good in the hope of people reforming their behaviors depends on what bad they did. Talking behind my back is a bad thing but I still can react in a good way. The same is for stealing my sockets. But for sure it's not the same when there's harm or damage. That should be socially punished not rewarded.