Better to be Loved or Feared?

[SuuT]

And why.

Only one rule: You cannot answer "both".

[Birka]

Feared, because girls always go for the bad guy. The befriend the girlie man, but go home with the dangerous bad boy.

That would be an interesting poll, do girls like the bad boy, or the emo guy who "understands" you?

[Psychonaut]

And why.

Only one rule: You cannot answer "both".

In strict accordance with your rules, my first answer would be neither. But since that's not the kind of answer you're looking for...

Were I bound by these two categories alone, my answer would necessarily depend upon the circumstances to which these options are being applied. Would a father rather be loved by his children or for them to fear him? If only one can be chosen, the answer is obvious. Would a terrorist rather his host population love him or fear his actions? Again, obvious. I'm not sure if I'd ever feel comfortable proclaiming the absolute betterness of any attribute.

[Absinthe]

You want to be feared when you can't be unconditionally loved, respected and appreciated for what you are. Which means you are doing something wrong.
I'd never want people fearing me, I prefer genuine acceptance based on my good qualities. :)

[Allenson]

You want to be feared when you can't be unconditionally loved, respected and appreciated for what you are. Which means you are doing something wrong.
I'd never want people fearing me, I prefer genuine acceptance based on my good qualities. :)

Agreed. When people fear another, they only intereact with the other because they are scared of any potential repercussions...or they're kissing ass for their own benefit/trying to get ahead. But when someone is loved, or even just liked, interactions are more pure--without alterior motives and conditions. Kinda like my dog. ;)

[ikki]

and as the advisor said in a book i must have read trice now... its good to be loved, but eventually there will be problems forcing you to turn against the intrests of your friends. This will cause hatred, the worst of the choises.

Whereas being feared without being an utter terror that is hated, you get the nearly best loyalty without having to choose between intrests and allies.

[Absinthe]

and as the advisor said in a book i must have read trice now... its good to be loved, but eventually there will be problems forcing you to turn against the intrests of your friends. This will cause hatred, the worst of the choises.

Whereas being feared without being an utter terror that is hated, you get the nearly best loyalty without having to choose between intrests and allies.

I bet the person who wrote that has never been loved :p

[ikki]

I bet the person who wrote that has never been loved :p

its also probly the only philosophers text that i have been able to actually read without tossing the book in the wall due to them stating too many wrong or poorly considered ideas.

Hail Macciavelli!

I do wonder how i would like Kautilya...

[Osweo]

The first scenario that popped into my head was that of Ivan the Terrible, a historical figure I've long had a fascination for, and then that of his later heir (and admirer and possible emulator) Soso Dzhugashvili. In both cases the emotional reactions were not clearly mutually exclusive anyway, though. Everyone loves the God-King, it's almost hardwired into us.

The feared ruler is usually the man with some sort of programme to get Things done. He's larger than life in that regard, almost at 'Culture Hero' level, and perhaps it's this that prompts the love.

Emperors and GenSecs notwithstanding, however, I choose Love. ;)
It's MAY after all!
lWqJTKdznaM
:p

[Allenson]

On second thought--whichever one gets me more nookie. ;)

[Germanicus]

My brother and i are chalk and cheese, he is the agressive quick to rile, bullish one, i could never understand him when growing up, i feared and hated him.
My character is different, i am slow to rile, i am more tolerant, i see both sides of the story but i do not suffer fools.
He has acquired friends that do not last long, my brother would be the last person i had a drink with.
My friends i have known since i was 9 years old, i keep my friends.
Family members have called me the gentle one, my brother the harder one.
So on reflection of my own lifetime experience, it is better to be loved than feared.

[Pallantides]

I'm loved and feared, but if I had to pick on I guess being loved.

[Aramis]

I'm loved and feared, but if I had to pick on I guess being loved.

Someone fears you?

[Cato]

"Let them hate me so long as they fear me."
- Emperor Tiberius.

Fear is often a better motivational force than love.

[Loddfafner]

It is nice to be loved once in a while. Normally, I am feared. Maybe it is the company I keep.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Someone fears you?

When he wears his Ghengis Khan costume

[Tabiti]

Feared. Because people tend to fear the stronger ones.

[Treffie]

In strict accordance with your rules, my first answer would be neither.

I'd rather be a non-entity - neither loved or feared.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Better to be loved, I think.

I go around being mean and it just does not work for me.

Funny thing is that very loving people come to be feared by the wicked anyway.

As ever, love is the answer to everything.

[Groenewolf]

It would depend on the context.

[SuuT]

1.) In the grand aggregate of consideration, it is better to be feared than to be loved.

While love can get one far, the distance will be traveled with a soft heart. A soft heart is only purposeful in the presence of the love that empowers it, and cowers in the affect of fear, which diminishes it. Fear is not diminished in the presence of love – only more radiant and more equally dispersed to the soft hearted, providing the illusion of a fear conquered; but it sill lives, and is indeed present in more. Fear, being more powerful than love, can sustain in this environment – the clash of apparent opposites. In this same environment, which can sustain fear, love is diminished, or dies. If this is so, then it is better to be feared than loved, as one will go undiminished by being feared: He is Free.


2.) In the grand aggregate of consideration, it is better to be loved than to be feared.

While fear can get one far, the distance will be traveled with a hard heart. A hard heart is only purposeful in the presence of the fear that empowers it, and cowers in the affect of love, which diminishes it. Love is not diminished in the presence of fear – only more radiant and more equally dispersed to the hardhearted, providing the illusion of a love conquered; but it sill lives, and is indeed present in more. Love, being more powerful than fear, can sustain in this environment – the clash of apparent opposites. In this same environment, which can sustain love, fear is diminished, or dies. If this is so, then it is better to be loved than feared, as one will go undiminished by being loved: He is Free.



...which one are you?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Pallamedes
Fear is often a better motivational force than love.

Very true, there is a saying make sure you never have a good (as in nice) king. Loved ones are easy to manipulate, a man who will ram a spear through your throat is harder to ignore. Good kings don’t have enemies because they are already dead or cowering in the shadows. Conan Kingship rule number 1 paragraph G.

I think it depends on context; you would want your wife, children and closest friends to love you. From a purely selfish perspective you need a band of loyal people who will stick by you if things go to shit, after all if you’re going to cultivate an aura of fear it’s a 24/7 for life kind of job and will last only as long as you beat your challengers.

Even a tyrant needs to be a people person.

As for me I’m too nice to be truly ruthless, a character flaw I blame on my upbringing. I feel bad when I do bad things….even to bad people. I try very hard to be feared, I invent ingenious schemes of evil (after all evil people have far more fun, are more stylish, and tend to be remembered) yet I still have a face that attracts small children and furry animals, I’m even called Uncle Divy by my niece………my plan to enslave the world and have them fear me is going to shit rapidly….

[Equinox]

Certain faiths teach unconditional love. I am yet to be acquainted with one that teaches unconditional fear (perhaps Hobbes' State of Nature?).

Regardless, as humans we are all at least somewhat hedonistic. The feared is the stronger and as Thrasymachus would say "Justice is the will of the stronger".

;)

[Cato]

A good king is equally just and equally merciful, neither too stern nor too compassionate. The good king knows that force is often the only way to make a point, to quell a rebellion or crush a plot against him, to defeat a border incursion by a rival nation.

An entirely compassionate and loved ruler wouldn't make these choices, hence he'd not be on the throne for very long.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Equinox
Certain faiths teach unconditional love.

One’s that have no intention of living in this world.

Love can be fearful itself as well as lead to devastation. The difference between love and hate is very fine indeed. People kill as often out of love as of hate, fear or jealousy.

“All we need is love” only a stoner could have wrote those lyrics, reason can temper the man but is that what we really want? There is a fine path between order/chaos, love/hate, respect/fear etc, the skill is to walk it, very few have and certainly no cultures that I am aware of for any length of time, then again equilibrium is a cancer that snuffs out life.....

[antonio]

One thing is for sure: fear is always a true feeling. Unfortunatelly is even more difficult to keep than true love. It takes a constant display of power, even of terror, from your part.:D

Love or friendship, on the other hand, are convenience matters too many times...if you let me be pessimistic I bet 50% maybe more. In ancient times, fear was common thing amongst men, current days, it's pollitically correct or legal no more, so false sentiments like love, admiration, good manners or frienship had taking its former place.:coffee:

[Solwyn]

I would rather be loved than feared. I don't think that being a loving person makes me any weaker than if I were a hard-arse. It might lead other people think that I am weak because I don't inspire fear, but that is their mistake. I've had my mettle tested, so to speak, and the fact that I am a loving person made me anything but weak. In fact, it was probably what made me stronger because I have something to fight for; the people that I know who enjoy the fear they create are privately quite miserable.

Now, back to coffee!!! :coffee:

[Cato]

A normal person can afford to be loved, but a leader can't.

[antonio]

I would rather be loved than feared. I don't think that being a loving person makes me any weaker than if I were a hard-arse. It might lead other people think that I am weak because I don't inspire fear, but that is their mistake. I've had my mettle tested, so to speak, and the fact that I am a loving person made me anything but weak. In fact, it was probably what made me stronger because I have something to fight for; the people that I know who enjoy the fear they create are privately quite miserable.

Now, back to coffee!!! :coffee:


The problem of feeling good being loved by others is that it easily yields to the weakness you don't feel, but is there, cause to be weak is not a feeling but a (bad) way of be in the world among others.

Unfortunatelly it takes a very strong soul (the leadership P. is talking about) to being save from the need of being loved (as I noted at my first post, not always a true impression, because it's not always true that the others really loved you, at least to the extent you think they love.

[Svanhild]

I want to be loved for my character and everything I am as a person. But I want to be feared for my abilities to keep and explain my point of view, my incorruptibility and my strong beliefs. :wink People fear no weak views. They fear strong views and people who are able to elucidate them.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I would rather be loved than feared. I don't think that being a loving person makes me any weaker than if I were a hard-arse. It might lead other people think that I am weak because I don't inspire fear, but that is their mistake. I've had my mettle tested, so to speak, and the fact that I am a loving person made me anything but weak. In fact, it was probably what made me stronger because I have something to fight for; the people that I know who enjoy the fear they create are privately quite miserable.

Now, back to coffee!!! :coffee:

Stop he coffee drinking and press the button.:lightbul:

http://history-of.mett.ze.tc/sexicun.html

[antonio]

I want to be loved for my character and everything I am as a person. But I want to be feared for my abilities to keep and explain my point of view, my incorruptibility and my strong beliefs. :wink People fear no weak views. They fear strong views and people who are able to elucidate them.

Curiously people (unfortunatelly for myself including myself) loved ones of opposite sex more for their beauty than for their character...so dont be modest and tell us the truth. :D

Unfortunatelly too you can have strong beliefs but cynical people are not to fear you if you lack the power and the wrath to "implement"(let me avoid enforce for sounding too harsh) them.

Ps. I hate English cultisms. Why to write cynical if you can write easier "cinical" (as in Spanish "cínico")? We know ancient Greek too (well, maybe) but dont bother about letter I or Y. I hate English interrogatives and Spanish stress marks too, why to write "cínico" if you can..."cinico"...just to keep you apart from iliterated ones...well, it's a good reason indeed.

[antonio]

A man with a cup of coffee on his hand is not tasting the flavour as if he were a bohemian-bourgueoise woman...he is actually planning something, probably evil. :D

[Eldritch]

Feared, because girls always go for the bad guy. The befriend the girlie man, but go home with the dangerous bad boy.

That would be an interesting poll, do girls like the bad boy, or the emo guy who "understands" you?

Most Apricity girls would vote "other" in that poll, in order to rationalise their preference for the bad guy. ;)

If I could invoke some fairy to wave her magic wand, or Lady GodGa with her disco stick, to transform me into a ruthless, remorseless asshole, I'd do so in a heartbeat. Not being a total bastard is basically my greatest shortcoming in life.

But by now I'm more or less resigned to my fate as a Beta male.

[Ulf]

You only get respect when you're kickin' ass.

[Absinthe]

That would be an interesting poll, do girls like the bad boy, or the emo guy who "understands" you?

I don't like these clichés / generalizations. Besides, most men combine elements of both :D

A girlfriend just called me and was telling me about how the "badass" guy that dumped her a few months ago after he had his way with her, went to her place yesterday and cried on her shoulder for hours after he got dumped in return by someone else :D

Call it Divine Intervention or whatever you may :D but this is my theory anyway:
there isn't a single "bad guy" out there who won't eventually turn emo. ;)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Absinthe
but this is my theory anyway:
there isn't a single "bad guy" out there who won't eventually turn emo.

http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll54/Liffrea66/emo.jpg

[Svanhild]

You only get respect when you're kickin' ass.
Hail KMFDM. :wink

[julie]

I say loved because no realationship will work if you fear someone!

[Liffrea]

Originally Postedby julie
I say loved because no realationship will work if you fear someone!

Hmmm in my experience many male-female relationships are based upon fear…….:D

Try forgetting your girls birthday, you only do it once......

[julie]

Hmmm in my experience many male-female relationships are based upon fear…….:D

Try forgetting your girls birthday, you only do it once......

That's not true with all girl's!:D

[antonio]

Hmmm in my experience many male-female relationships are based upon fear…….:D

Try forgetting your girls birthday, you only do it once......

For example, fear of not being able to find someone better? Indeed a powerful force, stronger even than the one that keeps atoms together. :D

[Lutiferre]

And why.

Only one rule: You cannot answer "both".

I'll go ahead and answer "both" anyway. There should be a healthy proportion of fear and love in different situations and amongst different people.

If you are only feared, your life is pretty empty, and no motivation is given to understand or relate to you as a human being. If you are only loved, of course, you may not be properly respected.

Fear in bigger proportions is something that is most suitable for those beneath you. As to your equals, a smaller proportion of fear is more suiting.

Taking one way of relating to the world as "the only", "the best", universally valid, and good in isolation, is unhealthy thinking - it's totalizing, "monotheistic", monotonotheistic.

[Murphy]

That depends on what result you want. Fear will drive a man to do as you will. Love will drive a man to go further beyond.

[Aemma]

Just throwing out what my gut tells me: Love (Did you really expect me to say the other one? :D)

[Lutiferre]

Just throwing out what my gut tells me: Love (Did you really expect me to say the other one? :D)

Of course not.

You are a woman.

[Aemma]

Of course not.

You are a woman.

Precisely. :thumb001:

[Ulf]

I'd rather be hated. :thumb001:

[Aramis]

I'd like the gls to love me, guys to fear.

That simple!

[Brynhild]

As a parent, I would rather be loved by my children than feared, although if they disobey me they do so at their own peril as my temper is quite foul and can incite fear in anyone.

[Wölfin]

Loved. Love inspires loyalty, devotions, etc. It creates emotions with much deeper and more solid roots. Love also inspired genuine respect. Fear on the other hand might enable one to control people, but only to a certain extent. Eventually it can and will cause people to turn on you because the feelings they have for you aren't positive and the respect is only out of self-preservation.

Overall although both could be useful depending on what you're trying to accomplish, being Loved gets you a lot further and stay that way.

[Saruman]

I would say loved for sure by all means by women and even men too (on friendship basis of course;)). But often, especially when dealing with corrupt "evil" people, you must appear formidable so being feared is simply a necessity.

[Lutiferre]

Loved. Love inspires loyalty, devotions, etc. It creates emotions with much deeper and more solid roots. Love also inspired genuine respect. Fear on the other hand might enable one to control people, but only to a certain extent. Eventually it can and will cause people to turn on you because the feelings they have for you aren't positive and the respect is only out of self-preservation.

Overall although both could be useful depending on what you're trying to accomplish, being Loved gets you a lot further and stay that way.
Love is often enough the sole product of fear.

I will argue that fear, or angst, is far more basic than love.

[Wölfin]

Love is often enough the sole product of fear.

I will argue that fear, or angst, is far more basic than love.

No doubt fear is a very powerful emotion. And in a way indeed more basic as it is distinct and quick and grips humans and animals with force when needed.

However, love is also a very natural normal emotion that once again both humans and animals may feel. The difference is love takes more time to build overtime, but it also a constant feeling and it is more likely to remain than fear.

And I don't understand how Love is a product of fear. I'd say in my experience it is the contary, fear is a product from lack of love.

Also as to explain my intial post, I'll give a metaphorical (or literal, works both ways in this case) example of being Loved vs being Feared. Say there are two owners each with a dog. They've decided on two different methods of raising them. Owner A treats his dog brutally to instill fear in him as a way of ensuring the dog will always obey. And the dog does for fear of being brutalized. Owner B treats his dog with kindness and although at times his dog tries his patience, eventually he manages to teach him what he wants.

So you might think at first owner A is smarter since he got his dog to obey faster. Yes but owner B also has a much more pleasant relationship to his dog.

The difference becomes even more crucial in a situation of danger. Owner A is walking his dog when he gets suddenly attacked. Dog A will most likely take a run for it, for his own life. He has no reason to defend his owner, to trust his owner or be attatched to his owner because he does not love his owner and hence might as well just save himself.

On the other hand when owner B gets attacked, his dog shows the true traits that a well-treated companion should. Dog B will probably defend his owner against the attacker by putting himself at risk out of loyalty, out of Love for his owner. Because there is a sense of attatchment, loyalty etc. which are created by love, there is a sense of urgency with wanting to defend the object of that affection.

Fear (and hate even) breeds cowers, Love breeds courage.

Its quite simple really, this can be observed in humans and animals alike.

[Lutiferre]

And I don't understand how Love is a product of fear. I'd say in my experience it is the contary, fear is a product from lack of love.
I disagree. Love is a product of fear in that fear necessitates love, love is created out of fear, it absolves from fear, love is to fear what an opiate is to pain.


Also as to explain my intial post, I'll give a metaphorical (or literal, works both ways in this case) example of being Loved vs being Feared. Say there are two owners each with a dog. They've decided on two different methods of raising them. Owner A treats his dog brutally to instill fear in him as a way of ensuring the dog will always obey. And the dog does for fear of being brutalized. Owner B treats his dog with kindness and although at times his dog tries his patience, eventually he manages to teach him what he wants.

I dont believe in this example, because I believe it is black and white. It is an idealist example, using metaphysical categories of purity.

In reality, there is usually an interplay and combination between fear and love, especially when it comes to a dog-owner.

Any puristic "fear" or "love" in itself, isolated from each other, is unhealthy, unnatural.

There is only a difference of proportions in different cases, not a qualitative one. The qualitative issue of fear or love as an absolute dilemma is an illusion created by the proportions and dominance of one over the other.

[Wölfin]

I disagree. Love is a product of fear in that fear necessitates love, love is created out of fear, it absolves from fear, love is to fear what an opiate is to pain.

I get what you're saying but you're straying from the topic itself which asks what is better, to be Loved or to be Feared. I explained why I think the former is better. It has nothing to do with the genesis of either, not directly anyway.

I also strongly disagree with that last example. You say Love stems from fear, but an opiate does not stem from pain. The need for an opiate may stem from pain. And the need for love may stem from fear in some cases. But Fear itself does not create Love, that's absurd.



I dont believe in this example, because I believe it is black and white. It is an idealist example, using metaphysical categories of purity.

In reality, there is usually an interplay and combination between fear and love, especially when it comes to a dog-owner.

Any puristic "fear" or "love" in itself, isolated from each other, is unhealthy, unnatural.

There is only a difference of proportions in different cases, not a qualitative one. The qualitative issue of fear or love as an absolute dilemma is an illusion created by the proportions and dominance of one over the other.
Idealist? Maybe. Using metaphysical categories of purity? What the Hell? No. I did not speak of the underlining currents and emotional gradients that existed between the owners and their pets because it was not necessary to illustrate my point. Since the root, the base of the feelings of the dogs towards their owners were what mattered ultimately between making or breaking. And precisely dog-owners are a good way to juxtapose the opposite spectrums. In a situation of fear dogs will react immediately without hesitation, there is no sitting and pondering about the philosphical and moral consequences of their actions.

You're failing to show me why you believe this. I'm open to what you have to say, but a bit of evidence might help in convincing me.

[Aramis]

Fear indeed is far more basic then love. It's concrete, whereas love is an abstract concept, but that's exactly where it draws it's strenght from.

The primal expirience of a newborn is fear. It cries out for love. Not the other way around.

[Lutiferre]

I also strongly disagree with that last example. You say Love stems from fear, but an opiate does not stem from pain. The need for an opiate may stem from pain. And the need for love may stem from fear in some cases. But Fear itself does not create Love, that's absurd.
The need for an opiate, and thus, the existence of an opiate in the human body - does stem from pain. It's not the same, it's an analogy.

Fear is what creates the possibility, even necessity, for love; it is what makes love a possibility, and then a reality. Love stems from fear.

[Liffrea]

Does the need for love define the strong from the weak? Is the weaker man one who needs love and acceptance, he needs belonging, where as the stronger man is indifferent to it and neither cares for it nor courts it.

Yes or no?

[Wölfin]

Fear indeed is far more basic then love. It's concrete, whereas love is an abstract concept, but that's exactly where it draws it's strenght from.

The primal expirience of a newborn is fear. It cries out for love. Not the other way around.

But that's just one type of Love. The reason why love is abstract is because it has many layers. Yet love is universal in that it can be found in all species that have a section of the brain dedicated to emotion. Its the kind and complexity of it that varies. I speak of the most basic form. Not just the Romanitc one.

Also see below.


The need for an opiate, and thus, the existence of an opiate in the human body - does stem from pain. It's not the same, it's an analogy.

Fear is what creates the possibility, even necessity, for love; it is what makes love a possibility, and then a reality. Love stems from fear.

I see, but as I said previously this is the need for Love and not Love itself. There is a step between Fear and Love in the case of the newborn for example. It is afraid, its mother gives it comfort (out of Love) and suddenly there is a bonding. So I still disagree based not on theory but observation in humans and animals alike. Aga

[Aramis]

But that's just one type of Love.

I was talking about love in general. The newborn was just a metaphore.


The reason why love is abstract is because it has many layers. Yet love is universal in that it can be found in all species that have a section of the brain dedicated to emotion. Its the kind and complexity of it that varies. I speak of the most basic form. Not just the Romanitc one.

And?


I see, but as I said previously this is the need for Love and not Love itself. There is a step between Fear and Love in the case of the newborn for example. It is afraid, its mother gives it comfort (out of Love) and suddenly there is a bonding. So I still disagree based not on theory but observation in humans and animals alike. Aga

Fear is the need, necessity for a cure, wich is found in love. Thus, the former is the basis of the latter. Fear without love means hollowness, but love without fear would sink into non-existence, as dread is dynamic (destructive), while love static. Together they form a coherent creative unity.

I think this is what Luti had in mind when stating angst to be far more basic. Let him correct me if I'm wrong.

[Curtis24]

Its better to be loved. Love is a more powerful force than fear - think of all those guys and girls who stay in bad relationships with someone who doesn't love them back/abuses them. Or a mother embracing her son who has been convicted of a homicide.

But its also harder to be loved. Its easier to instill fear in someone than to get them to love you.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Does the need for love define the strong from the weak? Is the weaker man one who needs love and acceptance, he needs belonging, where as the stronger man is indifferent to it and neither cares for it nor courts it.

Yes or no?

Definitely agreed there :thumb001:

[nisse]

I would like the world to be a fairer place, so I would rather be feared than loved. I think feelings should be mutual, and there are very few people I love, so it would be unfair to expect people to love me when I mostly don't love them myself. :ohwell: Plus, when you fear someone you don't expect good things from them, so this way I could never disappoint people.

Of course I would like those I love to love me back :D.

[Aramis]

Of course I would like those I love to love me back :D.

Hayden Christensen showed us it's not the way it works.

http://l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/star_wars__episode_iii__revenge_of_the_sith/hayden_christensen/wars.jpg

[RoyBatty]

Feared of course. "Love" is fickle. One day you'll be a darling and the next a pariah. At least with fear the plebians will be consistent.

[nisse]

Hayden Christensen showed us it's not the way it works.

Is that what Star Wars is about? I never liked that movie :ohwell: Star Trek is much better - everyone loves everyone on that show...or at least everyone loves Capt. Kirk :D

[RoyBatty]

The old Star Wars films (Ep. 4,5,6) were alright. They weren't nearly as boring, PC and full of annoying drivel as the recent ones. However, steer clear of the "remastered" versions of the old films because they've added a lot of CGI masturbatory rubbish.

The original prints are the best :)

[Aramis]

Is that what Star Wars is about? I never liked that movie :ohwell: Star Trek is much better - everyone loves everyone on that show...or at least everyone loves Capt. Kirk :D

Oh my naive child. William Shatner can't (http://www.topnews.in/light/william-shatner-was-clueless-about-%E2%80%98star-trek%E2%80%99-co-stars%E2%80%99-dislike-29825) be loved by definition. What you've encountered as "love" was nothing but a simple mixture of pity and a feeling of (baseless) superiority.

http://cygne.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/zapp.jpg

[nisse]

Oh my naive child. William Shatner can't (http://www.topnews.in/light/william-shatner-was-clueless-about-%E2%80%98star-trek%E2%80%99-co-stars%E2%80%99-dislike-29825) be loved by definition. What you've encountered as "love" was nothing but a simple mixture of pity and a feeling of (baseless) superiority.

I meant the character ;)...and I always thought Zap was more of a Picard parody :ohwell:

[Aramis]

I meant the character ;)...and I always thought Zap was more of a Picard parody :ohwell:

Could be. I never saw one whole episode of Star Trek in my life, so Zap was a wild guess :D

[lei.talk]

http://i56.tinypic.com/qsw1n7.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebus_the_Aardvark)

[San Galgano]

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
Niccolo Machiavelli

[Psychonaut]

http://i56.tinypic.com/qsw1n7.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebus_the_Aardvark)

Perhaps not Jaka, Joanne, Sophia, Astoria or Cirin...

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/53/images/cerebus8.jpg


...but Bear was another story altogether.

http://www.bookpalace.com/acatalog/GuysCerebus11.jpg

[Debaser11]

Feared. (At least in most cases. Certainty if you rule a state it is.) Respect is ensured with fear. Less so with love.

[Aemma]

The need for an opiate, and thus, the existence of an opiate in the human body - does stem from pain. It's not the same, it's an analogy.

Fear is what creates the possibility, even necessity, for love; it is what makes love a possibility, and then a reality. Love stems from fear.

Lutiferre, none of this makes much sense to me unless you state *how* love stems from fear.

I can assure you that when I first laid eyes upon my newborn son I fell in love with him, unconditionally, and fear was the farthest thing from my mind. Fear of some unknown factor did not compel me in any way to feel this utterly all-consuming swelling of my heart (and soul).

[Equinox]

Lutiferre, none of this makes much sense to me unless you state *how* love stems from fear.

I can assure you that when I first laid eyes upon my newborn son I fell in love with him, unconditionally, and fear was the farthest thing from my mind. Fear of some unknown factor did not compel me in any way to feel this utterly all-consuming swelling of my heart (and soul).

Perhaps fear of some ill befalling him?

In addition to this thread: It is also worth noting that love can invoke fear - for example - in some tribal communities it was customary for a tribe to meet with rivals and have a great feast, this feast would be a show-case of the strength of the host tribe. Whether they could afford such a feast or not.

[Aemma]

Feared. (At least in most cases. Certainty if you rule a state it is.) Respect is ensured with fear. Less so with love.

Is respect always ensured with fear? I tend to think that fear just ensures being feared. I find it difficult to believe that respect can be truly genuine when one fears another as opposed to when one loves another. :shrug:

[Aemma]

Perhaps fear of some ill befalling him?

This moreso comes *after* the feelings of love in this case however--very much so actually.

[Equinox]

This moreso comes *after* the feelings of love in this case however--very much so actually.

The instant you cherish/love something, you fear for it's safety I believe.

[Aemma]

The instant you cherish/love something, you fear for it's safety I believe.

Yes but as I stated above, one comes *before* the other. In this case, love first and then fear for one's offspring's safety. I cannot see how one could see it the other way around: fear for one's offspring's safety and then decide to love one's offspring. Love is the impetus for the fear and not the other way around, no?

[Equinox]

Yes but as I stated above, one comes *before* the other. In this case, love first and then fear for one's offspring's safety. I cannot see how one could see it the other way around: fear for one's offspring's safety and then decide to love one's offspring. Love is the impetus for the fear and not the other way around, no?

Not necessarily.

Say, for instance I have an object that is of of no immediate sentimental value, but will be after time as a maturing quality (for example a grandmother's china set). You can fear breaking it before you love it, or have it in your possession.

I daresay the same can be said for a child, at least in the pre-modern world where infant mortality was very high. One would fear the newborn dying initially and only when it has developed a certain level of personality and survived long enough so that one could assume it would live, would one then love it.

[Aemma]

Not necessarily.

Say, for instance I have an object that is of of no immediate sentimental value, but will be after time as a maturing quality (for example a grandmother's china set). You can fear breaking it before you love it, or have it in your possession.

I daresay the same can be said for a child, at least in the pre-modern world where infant mortality was very high. One would fear the newborn dying initially and only when it has developed a certain level of personality and survived long enough so that one could assume it would live, would one then love it.

But is the fact of bestowing upon said cherished object some intrinsic value (which gives rise to this fear) not an instance of love in and of itself?

[Debaser11]

Is respect always ensured with fear? I tend to think that fear just ensures being feared. I find it difficult to believe that respect can be truly genuine when one fears another as opposed to when one loves another. :shrug:


If you're cunning enough it is!;)

"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."--Machiavelli

"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."--Same guy

"There is no other way of guarding oneself against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect."--Debaser11

j/k :)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Lutiferre, none of this makes much sense to me unless you state *how* love stems from fear.

I can assure you that when I first laid eyes upon my newborn son I fell in love with him, unconditionally, and fear was the farthest thing from my mind. Fear of some unknown factor did not compel me in any way to feel this utterly all-consuming swelling of my heart (and soul).

MATERNA L0VE AS A MODEL
At some point in the evolutionary line of organisms, from the first simple
microbes to the rich variety of complex creatures alive today, maternal love
appeared as the first love on earth. Maternal love is both the first love created
by evolution and the first love that everyone experiences. This dual primacy
has made maternal love the prototype of all subsequent loves we will know in
the course of our life span; all subsequent loves seemingly draw the materials
required from this primordial love. The hormones, neural and cerebral proc-
esses, feelings, drive, and behavior that enact mother-infant relationships are
repeated in subsequent loves, just as they were in the first one.

[safinator]

The dog who fears his master always think of the moment he will be able to eat his nose. The dog who loves his master will give his life for him.

[Phil75231]

It depends on whether you need to be loved or feared.

Others fearing you can provide a sense of security. However, too much fear of you is self-destructive, especially in the long run. It will severely cut you off from social contacts - and hence cut you off from information and experiences that let you learn from others, or enable others to enthusiastically support you in your endeavors.

Love - depends on how much social interaction and approval you need. If you're a highly social person, then you will need love more than to be feared.

[rhiannon]

Loved.

If more of us were truly loved by those that matter most to us....I think the world in general would become a better place for everyone.

[derLowe]

In Business always feared. In other settings you need to be flexible.

[Pallantides]

At least you don't have to worry about getting a knife in your back from the people who love you.

[Moonbird]

At least you don't have to worry about getting a knife in your back from the people who love you.

Actually many gets killed by someone who loves them in acts of jealousy.

[SaxonCeorl]

It's best to be feared by the men and loved by the women :thumb001:

[The Alchemist]

Machiavelli claimed that no matter if you're hated, the most important thing is to be feared :|
Well, i don't agree at all. If people fear you, they just obey you and sure that one day they'll take revenge on you. While love conquers everything.

[The Alchemist]

Actually many gets killed by someone who loves them in acts of jealousy.
Sure that is no real love, just possession and egoism. Real love doesn't make suffer.

[mymy]

Loved... Is there anything person can crave for more in life? Love gives meaning to life. When i will feel loved, i will be happy. And what i would have from being feared?

[Supreme American]

Depends on the situation. I don't want degenerate turds to love me. I'd rather have them fear me.

[mymy]

Machiavelli claimed that no matter if you're hated, the most important thing is to be feared :|
Well, i don't agree at all. If people fear you, they just obey you and sure that one day they'll take revenge on you. While love conquers everything.

Because love is simply... the answer. :love0031:


Depends on the situation. I don't want degenerate turds to love me. I'd rather have them fear me.

Maybe, but love of one special person means more than anyone's fear. At least in my opinion.

[Damião de Góis]

Loved... depends by who.

As for feared i don't see any advantages in being "feared".

[rhiannon]

Because love is simply... the answer. :love0031:



Well, i don't agree at all. If people fear you, they just obey you and sure that one day they'll take revenge on you. While love conquers everything.

Both bear repeating.

[Pallantides]

Actually many gets killed by someone who loves them in acts of jealousy.

Maybe my mom is out to kill me, or maybe my brother is?:eek:



Sure that is no real love, just possession and egoism. Real love doesn't make suffer.

Yes I agree, also people without emotions can not feel true love, a psychopath might act like he loves someone, but he really don't.

[Incal]

Gimme some love.

[Drawing-slim]

Machiavelli claimed that no matter if you're hated, the most important thing is to be feared :|
Well, i don't agree at all. If people fear you, they just obey you and sure that one day they'll take revenge on you. While love conquers everything.not true at all.
People that we love we as humans tend to screw the worst.
And those that we fear we as humans tend always make sure to never cross the line with them.

Machiavelli is correct, we are all fucked up corrupted souls, and fear is what we deserve.

[Barreldriver]

Fallacy Mode On

Love is fear. Show me a relationship where those involved are bound together by anything other than various fears whether it be a fear of being alone, a fear of infidelity (leading to super-closeness perceived of as secure love in order to keep a watchful eye on the other), fear of going without sex, etc.... :whistle:

Fallacy Mode Off

[The Alchemist]

not true at all.
People that we love we as humans tend to screw the worst.
And those that we fear we as humans tend always make sure to never cross the line with them.

Machiavelli is correct, we are all fucked up corrupted souls, and fear is what we deserve.

This is only your distorted vision, probably made by your previous experiences. I'm sorry for you, but life and human relationships can be much more better and satisfying (with no illusions tough, basically we are all alone in this world). But i'm sure that all that one gives will turn back one day.

[RagnarLodbrok666]

Certainly better to be feared than loved. But you can have both. :lightbul:

[The Alchemist]

Certainly better to be feared than loved. But you can have both. :lightbul:

If you like negative feelings and way of life, then being feared is the ideal :thumb001:

[Sturmgewehr]

You want to be feared when you can't be unconditionally loved, respected and appreciated for what you are. Which means you are doing something wrong.
I'd never want people fearing me, I prefer genuine acceptance based on my good qualities. :)

this................

[Drawing-slim]

This is only your distorted vision, probably made by your previous experiences. I'm sorry for you, but life and human relationships can be much more better and satisfying (with no illusions tough, basically we are all alone in this world). But i'm sure that all that one gives will turn back one day.Dont feel sorry for me, and i sure hope you're right. I dont fear all the bad deeds i've done and the good ones to come back and haunt me, i can live with that..

[RoyBatty]

Loved by my friends, feared by the rest.

[Racial Observer 1814]

Loved by my friends, feared by the rest.



This.

[Barreldriver]

To be vague something is to be not sharply defined.

Love is not sharply defined given the plethora of differing definitions and applications of it, love is vague.

Vague is synonymous with ambiguous.

Ambiguity is a fault in language and in logic.

If love is vague and vagueness is to be equated with ambiguity, both vagueness and ambiguity are considered faults in language and logic, should not love be considered a fault in language and logic as well? :coffee:

- Seth Reeder/Amos Pennyfew/Cotard Capgras

Fear seems to be a much more concise issue of discussion so perhaps preferable?

[RoyBatty]

Machiavelli claimed that no matter if you're hated, the most important thing is to be feared :|


Machiavelli was right.



Well, i don't agree at all. If people fear you, they just obey you and sure that one day they'll take revenge on you.


There are all kinds of people in this world. For the purposes of this particular topic, there are two kinds:

Group [1] - The typical sheeple and followers who fear things and who obey.
Group [2] - The handful of those people who fear very little, who will not be intimidated, scared or manipulated, ie "leader*" types.

Group [1] only becomes dangerous once it has been successfully organised into a collective mob by Group [2].

Group [2] (a very, very small group) only becomes dangerous if they are allowed to survive and organise.

The moral of the story is that when you are feared, 99% of the idiots and sheeple out there will obey and will be too scared to lift a finger against you (even if they hate you) whilst the remaining handful of ambitious types may make attempts to usurp you if they are given the breathing room to do so.

You cannot please everybody in this life. Even if you try to be "loved", not everybody will love you, no matter what you do. There will always be those who want to depose you, if you are at the top.

Thus, Group [2] will always seek to dethrone you, no matter what you do.

If you show too much charity, love, peace and understanding to Group [1] and even to Group [2], they will simply interpret this as a sign of weakness and they will demand more and more, beyond realistic expectations. They will mistake your generosity for weakness, and they will start treating you with contempt while Group [2] will interpret this as a sign to start attacking you.

That is why being feared is better than being loved. It means that less idiots out there will want to screw with you. A few will try, of course, but they can usually be dealt with. It becomes much more difficult when EVERYBODY starts believing that they can screw with you.

The plebeians are kept in check through the mechanisms of fear, intimidation, the projection of strength, manipulation etc.

*About leaders

Another thing to keep in mind is that a politician or person with a title inside an organisation isn't necessarily a "real leader". Many, many stupids and losers are promoted or elected into so-called "leadership" positions but are incapable of generating real support and convince, manipulate or intimidate others into following and obeying them.

I was referring to real leaders in my Group [2] example.



While love conquers everything.

For some, maybe it does........

[The Alchemist]

^ The point is: if 99% of people obey and are submissive to you, then what do you really gain?? Will your life be more satisfying?? Are you sure of it??
And i think that the love of even a single person is millions times worthier than the obedience of entire nations.

[RoyBatty]

^ The point is: if 99% of people obey and are submissive to you, then what do you really gain?? Will your life be more satisfying?? Are you sure of it??


It all depends who and what you are and what you're trying to achieve in life, there are so many variables. For this example, would one see one's self as:

- a little person (ie a nobody)
- a person with grand plans and ambitions
- a person in a (genuine) leadership position
- a person in a given (not earned) leadership position
- a person (if in a leadership position) who wants to exploit the masses for personal profit
- a person (if in a leadership position) who has grand Ethnic / Cultural / National ambitions for their tribe

One can go on and on.

***************************
*What you gain***************
***************************

What you gain depends on what you're setting out to do. If your ambition is to forge your Nation into a coherent, organised and effective force, then you gain and achieve your dream of Nationbuilding.

In other words, in such a case you would gain job satisfaction.

If your ambition is to be left alone in your society then by ensuring that others fear you somewhat, other plebeians, authorities etc would think twice about screwing with you and you would gain yourself a small degree of freedom and breathing space. That = Result.

It's better to have a handful of worthy people love you, the rest don't matter.


***************************************
*Leader Type*****************************
***************************************


For the purposes of answering your question, let's assume that "you" are in a leadership position and have hordes of underlings and plebeians below you, then in such a case, showing too much compassion, generosity and so forth will be suicidal to yourself. It will only lead to more and more excessive demands from the masses, contempt from them, challenges from them etc.

Since self-preservation is one of our primary instincts such a policy of seeking "love" from the people would run contrary to our long term survival in political or personal terms.


***************************************
* Little Person Type************************
***************************************

If a person is a "little person" ie, a "nobody", then you are in a better position to attempt the "everybody needs to like me" experiment because, as a nobody, you won't be considered important enough by those in your social or professional circles to fuss over too much.

Imo it is still a waste of time trying to get people to love you. The ones who love you will love you anyway and the rest simply don't matter. Trying to please everybody doesn't work.



And i think that the love of even a single person is millions times worthier than the obedience of entire nations.

It becomes confusing when we compare people's personal situations with National Leadership positions. It depends what we want from life. If we want to live happily as "nobodies" (and there's nothing wrong with doing this) then yes, the love of a single person is worthy and the obedience of an Entire Nation would be irrelevant to our personal circumstances, because, as a nobody, we would be a plebeian and not a leader.

If we were a leader, then the love of a single or handful of people would still be worthy but the masses need to be kept in awe and fear of you, otherwise you're not a leader. For bonus points one can show them occasional charity, reward them for good results, behaviour etc but ultimately, they won't respect you if they don't fear you somewhat, they don't obey you and they get to do just what the hell they wanted to.

That will never work in a leadership position.

[The Alchemist]

^ sure, if you want to be a leader or a politician you need strength and power, so people's fear would be more functional to your goals.
But everyone knows that that kind of obedience is just forced and absolutely not spontaneous, and sure that one day it will end up in the opposite: riots, battles, wars for an overturning. History can show thousands exemples of this mechanism, just look at all dictatorships and absolute monarchies.
On the contrary, "lovely" and respectful leaders have had long and -relatively- balanced systems. Just look at King Ludwig in Bayern, he's still an icon among his people, or Marcus Aurelius in the ancient Rome.
Besides this political point of view, i think that being loved fills your life more than everything, no matter if you're an homeless or a powerful emperor.

[RoyBatty]

But everyone knows that that kind of obedience is just forced and absolutely not spontaneous, and sure that one day it will end up in the opposite: riots, battles, wars for an overturning.


There is no such thing as spontaneous obedience. People obey laws because those laws are backed up by force and punishment if they don't. They don't obey because they necessarily want to. Not in any society.




History can show thousands exemples of this mechanism, just look at all dictatorships and absolute monarchies.


History shows you countless examples of long-lasting dictatorships / monarchies etc. If an incompetent idiot were in charge of such a dictatorship or monarchy then obviously the chances of it collapsing become exponentially more likely. Dictatorships & Absolute Monarchies don't fail because of a lack of "love" for it amongst the citizenry / plebeians. It fails when it is unable to withstand attacks from outside or when it is mismanaged internally, thus giving opponents a chance to usurp the original dictator.

Empires either expand or contract. When their expansion campaign falters they usually soon find themselves under attack from other Empires.

The best defense is a good offence.



On the contrary, "lovely" and respectful leaders have had long and -relatively- balanced systems. Just look at King Ludwig in Bayern, he's still an icon among his people, or Marcus Aurelius in the ancient Rome.


They're long dead. People (and history books) love romanticising dead figures and turning them into saints. They can do no wrong since, after all, they're not around anymore. :D



Besides this political point of view, i think that being loved fills your life more than everything, no matter if you're an homeless or a powerful emperor.

You could be right (where it concerns one's self).

Peace, understanding and brotherly love don't work so well in the real world jungle though. One could try to be friendly but you'd be a fool if you didn't keep a knife handy, just for in case.

[Barreldriver]

On a less cynical note I would admit that in the scenario of love vs. fear the man Thomas Jonathan Jackson epitomizes the strength of the love of a people when it came time for him to lead Stonewall Brigade into battle. He needed not to install fear into the hearts of his men in order to lead them. If there is a paradise after death surely such a man resides in those halls. Hurrah for the sunny South!

[The Alchemist]

There is no such thing as spontaneous obedience. People obey laws because those laws are backed up by force and punishment if they don't. They don't obey because they necessarily want to. Not in any society.




History shows you countless examples of long-lasting dictatorships / monarchies etc. If an incompetent idiot were in charge of such a dictatorship or monarchy then obviously the chances of it collapsing become exponentially more likely. Dictatorships & Absolute Monarchies don't fail because of a lack of "love" for it amongst the citizenry / plebeians. It fails when it is unable to withstand attacks from outside or when it is mismanaged internally, thus giving opponents a chance to usurp the original dictator.

Empires either expand or contract. When their expansion campaign falters they usually soon find themselves under attack from other Empires.

The best defense is a good offence.



They're long dead. People (and history books) love romanticising dead figures and turning them into saints. They can do no wrong since, after all, they're not around anymore. :D



You could be right (where it concerns one's self).

Peace, understanding and brotherly love don't work so well in the real world jungle though. One could try to be friendly but you'd be a fool if you didn't keep a knife handy, just for in case.

A respectful leader is not necessarily, in my opinion, and "idiot" and a weak. One can be strong as steel and at the same time full of love for other people, the two things are not opposite. I agree that for a leader/politician strength is vital, but i don't agree with your vision.
Then, what were the causes that led to the french revolution, for exemple?? Cause the king was too "lovable" for his people or maybe cause he was a bastard egoist???
Or why is Mussolini still loved by some people?? In my humble opinion i think it's cause of the good things he did (like infrastructures and politics for the families' advantages), certainly not for the murder of thousands people (which i don't approve).
You're right that books like to demonize/romanticize historical characters and events, so none of usa can have a clear and realistic vision of the history, imo.
Anyway i definitely disagree with your vision of love/respect= weakness ;)

[Baron Samedi]

In regards to males...

Fear = power.

Love = weakness.

This mindset both works in the business world as well as the personal life.

People will walk over you (especially women) if you are kind.

We are fucking brutes... Deal with it.

[The Alchemist]

In regards to males...

Fear = power.

Love = weakness.

This mindset both works in the business world as well as the personal life.

People will walk over you (especially women) if you are kind.

We are fucking brutes... Deal with it.

I'm very kind and my life goes perfectly, trust me!! :thumb001:

[Baron Samedi]

I'm very kind and my life goes perfectly, trust me!! :thumb001:

Last time I checked, you are female, and I wasn't discussing your kind.

But, props.

[The Alchemist]

Last time I checked, you are female, and I wasn't discussing your kind.

But, props.
i'm sorry for you. It's not a matter of gender, but a matter of intelligence.

[The Ripper]

i'm sorry for you. It's not a matter of gender, but a matter of intelligence.

Being male is a matter of both. :thumb001: :D

[The Alchemist]

Being male is a matter of both. :thumb001: :D
two small balls don't make you more intelligent than us- creatures without them.

[The Ripper]

two small balls don't make you more intelligent than us- creatures without them.

Who ever told you my balls are small? :rolleyes:

Anyway, my point was that you misunderstood BS, who meant that women walk over "weak" / "loving" males. He was talking about males, not intelligence or whatever.

[The Alchemist]

Who ever told you my balls are small? :rolleyes:
Sir Baron Saturday.

[Hevneren]

It depends on who loves me or fears me.

Overall, love is better than fear because if you have little power then you will still be loved, but if you have little power there is no reason to fear you. If you have power, then fear is only useful as long as your power can hold others in line, because the most hated dictators tend to be toppled and some meet a very bad ending, but the most loved leaders will be revered and remembered in history.

Simply put, fear/hatred puts you in greater danger than love. If you're a leader who people hate and fear, then eventually someone will try to take away your power or kill you. The chances are you'll live longer if you're loved by your people.

I object to those who say a man who is loved or who isn't feared, is therefore "weak". To be likable is very useful from an evolutionary standpoint. Women will want to mate with the likable/loved males, and people in general will help likable people. This means higher survivability and a greater chance for the continuation of genes for likable/loved males.

The alpha males are usually the strongest males who could use force and intimidation if they wanted to, but who don't need to because of their social standing and respect. It's more likely that males wanting to challenge the ruling males, will use threats and intimidation, because they have no other option due to being less desirable/likable.

Feared or hated individuals are at a disadvantage because people generally don't like them or want to help them. They're outside the "group", often ostracised.

[Teyrn]

Love is fickle, much better to be feared and hated.

[Amapola]

Personally, I would respect, obey and help a lovable authority more efficiently than a hateful one. No matter if I liked it or not, I would be tempted over and over again to betray the authority that produces fear in me, whereas I would be inclined to give myself to the lovable one even if I was not getting any advantage at all. I think this is the key why imposition and fear are not lasting tools in the end.

[The Alchemist]

Who ever told you my balls are small? :rolleyes:

Anyway, my point was that you misunderstood BS, who meant that women walk over "weak" / "loving" males. He was talking about males, not intelligence or whatever.

BS relates necessarily "kindness" with "weakness", and i think he meant that these qualities suit well on women, but not on men.
And my point was: it's not a matter of gender (male or female), but only of "intelligence": the intelligence of a person lie in his capacity to balance strength and courtesy, compassion and power, and so on.
I hope you understand me now: i just don't think that kindness or strength are exclusive qualities of only one gender.

[The Ripper]

BS relates necessarily "kindness" with "weakness", and i think he meant that these qualities suit well on women, but not on men.
And my point was: it's not a matter of gender (male or female), but only of "intelligence": the intelligence of a person lie in his capacity to balance strength and courtesy, compassion and power, and so on.
I hope you understand me now: i just don't think that kindness or strength are exclusive qualities of only one gender.

I understand your point, but your initial reply to BS showed that you misunderstood his, so I just tried to clear the misunderstanding.

[The Alchemist]

Personally, I would respect, obey and help a lovable authority more efficiently than a hateful one. No matter if I liked it or not, I would be tempted over and over again to betray the authority that produces fear in me, whereas I would be inclined to give myself to the lovable one even if I was not getting any advantage at all. I think this is the key why imposition and fear are not lasting tools in the end.

I think 99% of us have the same feeling towards obedience and impositions :thumb001:
Especially me, who i have always been very rebel towards any hierarchy.

[The Alchemist]

I understand your point, but your initial reply to BS showed that you misunderstood his, so I just tried to clear the misunderstanding.
Nahh, i understood him but i was just provoking him about men's presumed "strength" ;D Anyway it's all right, everyone has got the right to have his own point of view ;)

[The Ripper]

I just can't help myself..

BS said

People will walk over you [males] (especially women) if you are kind.

We [males] are fucking brutes... Deal with it

(added brackets mine)

To which you replied that you are kind and no one walks over you, or something to that effect. To which BS quite rightly replied that you are female. ;)

[The Alchemist]

I just can't help myself..

BS said


(added brackets mine)

To which you replied that you are kind and no one walks over you, or something to that effect. To which BS quite rightly replied that you are female. ;)

Ok ok, i understood that he meant what happens to a "weak" man, my point is just that there are no such differences between men and women!! People walk over you even more when you're a woman, when you're not strong enough ;) But kindness and strength can coexist easily ;)

[Teyrn]

Ok ok, i understood that he meant what happens to a "weak" man, my point is just that there are no such differences between men and women!! People walk over you even more when you're a woman, when you're not strong enough ;) But kindness and strength can coexist easily ;)

Kindness is often a luxury that simply can't be afforded or desired but this is more true in ideological conflicts (against terrorism, nazism, etc.) than in interpersonal conflicts (boyfriend/girlfriend).

Strength tempered by kindness is a human ideal that's rarely attained outside of some kind of saintly religious or philosophical figure- whose positive characteristics are almost always exaggerated, :wink