That is a great movie, by the way. The perfect tale of courage, of a man standing alone for the sake of doing the right thing, even if it means losing the love of his life. And the lesson not to be like the cowardly townsfolk. And the power of love to triumph over dogma. (The title ballad is also a great invention, outlining the huge issue of the story. And its poignant line, "Do not forsake me, oh my darlin' ")
I don't believe there is such a distinction. Threaten the child of any "harmless" woman and I believe she would become capable of anything to protect her children. I would expand that to include her husband. She would also protect him. I would go so far to.say at the expense of her own life if necessary.
I can't speak for men...although I suspect the same would hold true.
I think Jordan Peterson made this point frequently. He said the word "harmless" with evident disdain. Quite as though being harmless defined not being a man.
I'm trying to figure out what the motivation behind this is. To have people proclaim they're capable and waiting or even eager to be violent if the situation calls for it?
Is it calling out the "Trust The Plan" directive, that many people say is just a ploy to keep us from taking action.
Or did someone just want to share a meme with a cute cat?
...two kinds of people in this world...
...those who make things happen...
...and the rest who stand by and ask, "what happened"...
A peaceful man or woman can be pushed to violence. A great example is found in the movie High Noon.
That is a great movie, by the way. The perfect tale of courage, of a man standing alone for the sake of doing the right thing, even if it means losing the love of his life. And the lesson not to be like the cowardly townsfolk. And the power of love to triumph over dogma. (The title ballad is also a great invention, outlining the huge issue of the story. And its poignant line, "Do not forsake me, oh my darlin' ")
Do we get movies like that today?
Iām pretty peaceful. Currently getting my old warrior body back into shape. š
Beautiful drawing.
I don't believe there is such a distinction. Threaten the child of any "harmless" woman and I believe she would become capable of anything to protect her children. I would expand that to include her husband. She would also protect him. I would go so far to.say at the expense of her own life if necessary.
I can't speak for men...although I suspect the same would hold true.
I've got plenty of "pieces", so I guess I qualify as "piece-full."
Credit Jordan Peterson with publicly making that distinction. How no man should be "harmless" and unable or unwilling to defend anything.
I think Jordan Peterson made this point frequently. He said the word "harmless" with evident disdain. Quite as though being harmless defined not being a man.
Does it matter, in the greater scheme of things?
I'm trying to figure out what the motivation behind this is. To have people proclaim they're capable and waiting or even eager to be violent if the situation calls for it?
Is it calling out the "Trust The Plan" directive, that many people say is just a ploy to keep us from taking action.
Or did someone just want to share a meme with a cute cat?
Its the usual "Are you a man or a mouse" question, thats all.