Dherbs Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2012, 04:37:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the new and improved Dherbs Forums!
20558 Posts in 5808 Topics by 1955 Members
Latest Member: adminRob
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  Dherbs Forums
|-+  New Age / Metaphysics
| |-+  New Age & Metaphysics
| | |-+  Should a person be "Anti" anything?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Should a person be "Anti" anything?  (Read 440 times)
360 overstand
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


View Profile WWW
« on: December 12, 2009, 11:16:09 AM »

During my life I have always seen a body do something that provokes a response. ( vietnam, patriot act, iraq, gay marriage etcetc)

Then what follows is always ANTI war,  ANTI gay marriage, ANTI big govenment. ANTI violence

to me however these are mentalities of sure failure because  I think of it like this ( about to bring another boxing analogy lol)

There are fighters who have ANTI whooped mentalities. Boxers who fight but fight not to get knocked out instead of fighting to win ( and what happens is they usually get ko'd anyway). Then there are the fighters who fight to win regardless of odds, their age, etc.

I see ANTI anything rallies and movements as fighting not to get whooped and a reaction to getting whooped already (fighters gain the fear after being Ko'd  and question themselves). Instead the antithesis of what you're fighting against should be ADVOCATED and to hell with the rest.

Logged

Nakih
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2009, 04:16:21 PM »

I feel what you are saying. It seems like to much energy focused on what you don't want.  And like the saying goes where thought goes energy flows.
Logged
Radiance
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2009, 09:27:21 AM »

A little confused on your analogy, not a big boxing fan.

But I just wondering is it a matter of word play versus someone being anti-slavery, anti-animal cruelty, anti-kidnapping...etc..should it be Pro-Freedom, Pro-Life, Pro-Protection?

Or should it be no Anti this or Pro that? 
It makes me wonder if no person took a stand on anything, would it be a lot of chaos, would there be any order to life?
Logged
360 overstand
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2009, 10:33:32 AM »

A little confused on your analogy, not a big boxing fan.

But I just wondering is it a matter of word play versus someone being anti-slavery, anti-animal cruelty, anti-kidnapping...etc..should it be Pro-Freedom, Pro-Life, Pro-Protection?

Or should it be no Anti this or Pro that? 
It makes me wonder if no person took a stand on anything, would it be a lot of chaos, would there be any order to life?


many fighters just resist getting Ko'd instead of trying to win which is how I see anti-war, anti abortion etc etc. It should be pro freedom pro life etc. Anti is always reactionary . Stands should be taken before anything is initiated by the powers that be. Anti is a negative polarity and opposites attract, how to you form a resistance in magnets?  try to connect the same poles together they can't connect.  So when the powers that be advocate something, you advocate something instead of trying to shut down what their doing.   Let me thing of a better way to put it.
Logged

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to: