throw the first punch for peace.
One of the firm beliefs that I have held growing up in life was the thought of fighting. For me, I always let the other person throw the first punch. I would never be the one to throw the first punch because that whole 'knock them out before they hit you' of pre-emptive striking never really sat well in my mind. For me, I always figured that if you were out for the pre-emptive strike of 'do unto others as they would do unto you...but do it first' means that people are going to fight because everyone wants to get in the first blow. I went by the thought of waiting for the other person to throw the first punch and then retaliate on that. With that philosophy, everyone would be waiting, with weapons ready, for the other person to fire or throw the first punch and since we are waiting, there would be no war because there would be no first climax. But there was a line in one of the trailers that I saw today that made me think this might not work for all situations.
Firefighters and police people can not say "for me to protect the people, they have to be willing to protect themselves". So if I go out with that thought, then if people got into a position where they needed the firefighters or the police, they havent taken care of themselves. A person that went to bed smoking a cigarette wont need a firefighter cause they didnt protect themselves. A person that is getting mugged cause they walked down a dark alley or in a dark park, didnt take care of themselves by not walking down a fully lit path/street.
what about "a man must be willing to put his wife first in all that he does"? Why doesnt the wife have to put the husband first in all that she does? what happens if the sacrifice is something that both cant be done? man makes equal pay as the woman does living in the town that they are in but the man hates his job and the woman loves her. Suddenly a job opens in another town that the man loves but the woman would have to give up her job that she loves to go to one that she isnt too happy with (same job that she loves, but the co-w0rkers are horrible and are not as great as the team she has). If at that point, should the woman sacrifice her happiness and job to make the man happy (putting the husband first before the wife), or should the man continue to sacrifice his happiness for the happiness of the wife? I know the happy medium is to find something that says "I sacrificed this, you sacrifice that, we compromise and the world is a happy place" but why cant it be as easy as the first punch rule? there never is an "ok, you threw that punch first, I throw this punch first and there is peace" but there is an 'ok, you sacrificed this, I will sacrifice that for peace in the household"? and if there is a case of "I will sacrifice all for you, you sacrifice nothing for me and there is peace" (like the waiting for the other person to throw the first punch), then the one that is sacrificing all is called a spineless, henpecked, pussywhipped man (or the woman is called an oppressed, dominated, subserviant female).
Guess when it comes to life, like all things in life like food/alocohol/drugs/pleasure/pain, it is 'everything in moderation'. Do this a certain amount of times, do that a certain amount of times and in then end, when you have done it all a reasonable amount of times, you might find peace in your life.
Firefighters and police people can not say "for me to protect the people, they have to be willing to protect themselves". So if I go out with that thought, then if people got into a position where they needed the firefighters or the police, they havent taken care of themselves. A person that went to bed smoking a cigarette wont need a firefighter cause they didnt protect themselves. A person that is getting mugged cause they walked down a dark alley or in a dark park, didnt take care of themselves by not walking down a fully lit path/street.
what about "a man must be willing to put his wife first in all that he does"? Why doesnt the wife have to put the husband first in all that she does? what happens if the sacrifice is something that both cant be done? man makes equal pay as the woman does living in the town that they are in but the man hates his job and the woman loves her. Suddenly a job opens in another town that the man loves but the woman would have to give up her job that she loves to go to one that she isnt too happy with (same job that she loves, but the co-w0rkers are horrible and are not as great as the team she has). If at that point, should the woman sacrifice her happiness and job to make the man happy (putting the husband first before the wife), or should the man continue to sacrifice his happiness for the happiness of the wife? I know the happy medium is to find something that says "I sacrificed this, you sacrifice that, we compromise and the world is a happy place" but why cant it be as easy as the first punch rule? there never is an "ok, you threw that punch first, I throw this punch first and there is peace" but there is an 'ok, you sacrificed this, I will sacrifice that for peace in the household"? and if there is a case of "I will sacrifice all for you, you sacrifice nothing for me and there is peace" (like the waiting for the other person to throw the first punch), then the one that is sacrificing all is called a spineless, henpecked, pussywhipped man (or the woman is called an oppressed, dominated, subserviant female).
Guess when it comes to life, like all things in life like food/alocohol/drugs/pleasure/pain, it is 'everything in moderation'. Do this a certain amount of times, do that a certain amount of times and in then end, when you have done it all a reasonable amount of times, you might find peace in your life.
posted by Capt_Canuck at 12:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home