The justification of revenge.

Is revenge justifiable? In most cases, no. Most of the time, revenge over a petty act will only cause more harm to self than to the recipient of said vengeance. But, what if the original act was so cruel, that the only logical feeling anyone would feel is the need for revenge?

Most of us have probably heard the saying: 'Revenge is like a double edged sword. As the enemy goes down, you go down with him.' But, what if the enemy has caused so much damage, to the point which, no matter how hard you would attempt to recover, it will never work. That you will never recover, even if you had all the time in the universe. This is the point where dangerous people are made.

People who are at this level of damage have two options: to forgive and forget, or to have a full intention of exacting revenge. Of course, the preferable and more socially acceptable option is the former, but, to think again, at such a low point, there are no consequences to self, for the latter. Whatever they would reap, can't reap them again.

This doesn't justify revenge, of course. This just shows why even the most intellectual of people, when knocked down very low, would dedicate everything towards it. Lose all of their emotional control. Something many people have felt, but I think no one deserves to feel.

Revenge is still revenge. It is generally seen as wrong, especially when it comes to the more major crimes, such as murder, or morally wrong acts such as defamation of figures. But how should we feel towards one who desires such vengeance? Should we feel sympathy, or resent?

How we should treat such people also depends on the occasion. However emotionally deranged they have become, they are still people with opinions and rationale. Sometimes, their reasons may convince us that in their case, revenge is justice.

My conclusion is, revenge is justifiable to a small extent. Also, never hurt someone so cruelly, to the point where one does not have anything left to lose. That is when they seek vengeance

Change

Many people make the infuriating assumption that change is always good. Although this may seem to be true, we should always remind ourselves that change can also be defined as change in the opposite direction. This is a very important topic to go over especially when the premise of many potential leaders is to be harbingers of change.

Without a doubt, change is inevitable. So we can only hope that change is always for the better. But, our hopes are never always the case as well. The only consistency is that change will always occur. The only debate is whether change is necessary or not.

Whenever a change is made in a system, there is always an advantage and a disadvantage. Arguably, the best way is to find an equilibrium, where the advantage is at a maximum, and the disadvantage, a minimum. Therefore, every single change needs to be thought out carefully. Every purpose of the present and potential future weighed in a calculation. The very reason why change in a large system is always slow.

There are cases where a large system is always threatened to be replaced entirely, the ultimate change. This is when the debate over change becomes completely ridiculous.

Large systems, such as governments, takes a lot of effort to build, and simply because one is dissatisfied with how a simple element of the system works, one would support a party to completely dismantle it? Not only is it ridiculous to destroy a system, rendering the initial effort in vain, to build a suitable system to act in stead of the former would take more effort, probably more time.

My concluding note is: when dissatisfied with a single, few, or be it MOST of the elements of a system, campaign against said elements, and not against the entire system. Replace only what need be replace and retain what satisfies.

Self-Confidence

To know that you have the potential to do something, with added effort, is the same as having the ability to do it. This is the concept of self-confidence.

The human mind can be so easily tricked by a lie to oneself, that it boosts it's own capabilities simply to match one's very wishes. The trick is to simply be calm, take one step at a time, and accept any outcome of an endeavor, though preferably a positive one. This has more to do with how our brains simply refuse to function properly in a state of chaos.

Disappointment leads to a lack of confidence. Lack of confidence leads to negative feelings. Negative feelings lead to chaos. Chaos leads to confusion. Confusion leads to mind block. Mind block leads to negative results.
It all boils down to this chain reaction. Need not be said, it is better to cut the chain off earlier.

Even winners lose sometimes. Nobody ever reigns as champion forever. In fact, champions themselves have tried and failed countless times before reaching where they are. They all share a certain trait: Resilience. The ability to come back exponentially better after a failure. While others crawl into their beds with negativity, they are the ones who knew that they needed to push harder in order to overcome the challenges they have faced. And even at the top, they often fail. But at that point, failure does nothing but amuse them.

To have resilience is to be confident even in the face of failure. It is to know that your ability is better than your recorded grade. It is to commit effort into trying once again.

The right to withhold opinion.

In my country, the 13th General Election is in progress. Naturally this becomes quite a hot issue, amongst all supporters of all parties. But is it really necessary to talk about all of this?


Although I am too young to vote as of the current moment, If I did have the chance, I would not take it, as a symbol to show that I do not care who becomes the next ruling party, as long as the party treats the citizens of my country well enough. No government is perfect. Even the tax-free ones.

I, as one whose opinion sways as a pendulum strikes, am someone who always feels left out in any such argument. Whenever I sit together with a group of my friends, and the topic switches to politics, I will either remain at an awkward silence, or find an excuse the leave the group, not any less awkwardly. But do I really have to feel awkward?

Surely, freedom of speech allows everyone to speak everything, but sometimes, I believe that it is too risky to blatantly state our opinions, as people would draw a map of you as you speak. They might stereotype your other opinions based on a single one.

The gist of this article is to say that even though we are allowed to speak our mind, we should sometimes also exercise the right to withhold such opinions, especially if stating them may cause our own harm. We need to be more tactful, an observe our surroundings before speaking.