Traditional healer
Revenge Spells by Mama Hadija to punish someone who has harmed you or wants to harm you or your loved ones. Revenge spells that are powerful
Spells for revenge by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Revenge spells http://revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://revengespells.co.za
Choose this spell to punish someone until you or someone else is avenged. Spells for Revenge will help you to descipline any person who has hurt you
Revenge spells to punish those who have hurt you & the people you love. Get justice & closure with revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za
Revenge spells
Revenge in religion
Many religions condemn revenge, or promote it as eternal punishment. Judaism forbids revenge for small sins such as insults and things like stealing.
For large crimes, such as murder, the issue of revenge is more complicated. While some rabbis condemn all revenge, others consider feelings (though not necessarily actions) of revenge permissible in extreme cases such as murder, where the forgiveness of the person offended cannot be attained.
Some assert that the Hebrew Bible’s concept of reciprocal justice “an eye for an eye” (Exod. 21:24) validates the concept of proportionate revenge, in which there would be a simple ‘equality of suffering’;
However Rabbinic law states this verse indicates a person should provide a monetary payment for the eye or tooth that was damaged, and does not require the assailant to receive physical damage.
This view confounds the concepts of justice and revenge, and disregards the fact that “eye for an eye” justice was a philosophical advance on the normative practice of the day and that Judaic scripture elsewhere prescribes “Do not seek revenge . . . love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).
Also, the Hebrew Bible illustrates the concept that ‘”vengeance is mine” says the Lord’ (Deut. 32:35, cf., in the NT, Rom. 12:19).
- Revenge is not always better, but neither is forgiveness; learn to know them both, son, so that there is no problem. — Prahlada
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Revenge in society
Social psychologist Ian Mckee says the desire for the sustenance of power motivates vengeful behavior as a means of impression management: “People who are more vengeful tend to be those who are motivated by power, by authority and by the desire for status. They don’t want to lose face.
Some societies encourage the revengeful behavior which is called blood feud. These societies usually attribute the honour of individuals and groups a central role. Thus, while protecting of his reputation an avenger feels as if he restores the previous state of dignity and justice.
According to Michael Ignatieff, “revenge is a profound moral desire to keep faith with the dead, to honour their memory by taking up their cause where they left off.”
Thus, honour may become a heritage that passes from generation to generation. Whenever it is compromised, the affected family or community members might feel compelled to retaliate against an offender to restore the initial “balance of honour” that preceded the perceived injury.
This cycle of honour might expand by bringing the family members and then the entire community of the new victim into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Revenge proverbs
The popular expression “revenge is a dish best served cold” suggests that revenge is more satisfying if enacted when unexpected or long feared, inverting traditional civilized revulsion toward ‘cold-blooded’ violence.
The idea’s origin is obscure. The French diplomat Talleyrand (1754–1838) has been credited with the saying La vengeance est un mets que l’on doit manger froid. [Revenge is a dish that should be eaten cold.], albeit without supporting detail.
It has been in the English language at least since the 1846 translation of the 1845 French novel Mathilde by Joseph Marie Eugène Sue: la vengeance se mange très-bien froide, there italicized as if quoting a proverbial saying, and translated revenge is very good eaten cold. It has been wrongly credited to the novel Les liaisons dangereuses (1782).
Its path to modern popularity may begin with the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets which had revenge is a dish which people of taste prefer to eat cold. The familiar wording appears in the film Death Rides a Horse (1967), in the novel The Godfather by Mario Puzo (1969), and as if from an “old Klingon Proverb” in the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) and again in the title sequence of the Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill: Vol 1 (2003)
Another proverb states: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” The implication here is that a desire for revenge may ultimately hurt the seeker as much as the victim. Alternatively, it may imply that you should be prepared to die yourself in the process of seeking revenge
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Revenge in the arts
Revenge is a popular subject in literature, drama, and other arts. Notable examples include the plays Hamlet and Othello by William Shakespeare, the novel The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, and the short story “The Cask of Amontillado” by Edgar Allan Poe.
Other examples are the Greek myths of Medea, the painting Herodias’ Revenge by Juan de Flandes, the opera Don Giovanni by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and the novel The Princess Bride by William Goldman.
In Japanese art, revenge is a theme in various woodblock prints depicting the Revenge of the Forty-Seven Ronin by many well-known and influential artists, including Kuniyoshi.
The Chinese playwright Ji Junxiang used revenge as the central theme his theatrical work The Orphan of Zhao;[17] it depicts more specifically familial revenge, which is placed in the context of Confucian morality and social hierarchal structure.
Some modern societies use tales of revenge to provide catharsis, or to condition their members against acting out of desire for retribution.
In many of these works, tragedy is compounded when the person seeking revenge realizes he/she has become what he/she wished to destroy. However, in others, the consummation is depicted as satisfying and cathartic.
Revenge is also a popular theme in video games, with some games featuring revenge as the driving force of the plot. In the 2012 video game Dishonored, players assume the role of Corvo Attano, bodyguard to the Empress of Dunwall, Jessamine Kaldwin, who is framed for her assassination and imprisoned as a result. After escaping prison, each mission requires the player to find and neutralize (as killing enemies is entirely optional) those involved in the assassination plot.
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Retributive justice
Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return.
Retribution should be distinguished from vengeance. Unlike revenge, retribution is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at the suffering of others, and employs procedural standards.
In ethics and law, “Let the punishment fit the crime” is a principle aphorism that means the severity of penalty for a misdeed or wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the infraction.
The concept is common to most cultures throughout the world and is evident in many ancient texts. Its presence in the ancient Jewish culture is shown by its inclusion in the law of Moses, specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, and Exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes the punishments of “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
That phrasing in turn resembles the older Code of Hammurabi. Many other documents reflect this value in the world’s cultures. However, the judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary greatly between cultures and individuals.
Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour. However, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime. A retributive system must punish severe crime more harshly than minor crime, but retributivists differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall.
Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction.
For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has been committed and carried out to atone for the damage already done.
Depending on the retributivist, the crime’s level of severity might be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or moral imbalance the crime caused.
In the early period of all systems of code the redress of wrongs takes precedence over the enforcement of rights, and a rough sense of justice demands the infliction of proportionate loss and pain on the aggressor as he has inflicted on his victim.
Hence the prominence of the “lex talionis” in ancient law. The Bible is no exception: in its oldest form it too included the “lex talionis,” the law of “measure for measure” (this is only the literal translation of middah ke-neged middah).
In the 19th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morals, §49 E., that the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe must be based on retribution and no other principle. “Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime.”
Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice, and it must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done. Further, if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.
There are two distinct types of retributive justice. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence.
A more recent version advocated by the philosopher Michael Davis dismisses this idea and replaces it with the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer.
Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was making a resurgence within the philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the practical failings of reform theory in the previous decades.
Traditional alternatives to retributive justice have been exile, declaring the transgressor an outlaw and shunning, in pre-modern societies such sentences were often the equivalent of the death penalty as individuals would find it impossible to survive without the support and protection of the society that they had wronged.
Modern alternatives to retributive measures include psychiatric imprisonment, restorative justice and transformative justice. A general overview of criminal justice puts each of these ideals in context.
One libertarian approach to this issue argues that full restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian degree of deterrence.
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Eye for an eye
An eye for an eye is the principle that a person who has injured another person is penalized to a similar degree, or according to other interpretations, the victim receives the value of the injury in compensation. According to Jewish interpretations, the victim in criminal law gets financial compensation based on the law of human equality eschewing mutilation and lex talionis.
The English word talion means a retaliation authorized by law, in which the punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the injury, from the Latin talio.The phrase “an eye for an eye” is sometimes trivially referred to using the Latin term lex talionis, the law of retaliation.
The term lex talionis does not always and only refer to literal eye-for-an-eye codes of justice (see rather mirror punishment) but applies to the broader class of legal systems that specify formulate penalties for specific crimes, which are thought to be fitting in their severity.
Some propose that this was at least in part intended to prevent excessive punishment at the hands of either an avenging private party or the state.
The most common expression of lex talionis is “an eye for an eye”, but other interpretations have been given as well. Legal codes following the principle of lex talionis have one thing in common: prescribed ‘fitting’ counter punishment for an offence.
In the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of exact reciprocity is very clearly used. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death.
Under the right conditions, such as the ability for all actors to participate in an iterative fashion, the “eye for an eye” punishment system has a mathematical basis in the tit for tat game theory strategy.
The simplest example is the “eye for an eye” principle. In that case, the rule was that punishment must be exactly equal to the crime. Conversely, the twelve tables of Rome merely prescribed particular penalties for particular crimes.
The Anglo-Saxon legal code substituted payment of wergild for direct retribution: a particular person’s life had a fixed value, derived from his social position; any homicide was compensated by paying the appropriate wergild, regardless of intent.
Under the British Common Law, successful plaintiffs were entitled to repayment equal to their loss (in monetary terms). In the modern tort law system, this has been extended to translate non-economic losses into money as well.
The meaning of the principle Eye for an Eye is that a person who has been injured by another person returns the offending action to the originator in compensation, or that an authority does so on behalf of the injured person.
The exact Latin (lex talionis) to English translation of this phrase is actually “The law of retaliation.” The root principle of this law is to provide equitable retribution.
Various ideas regarding the origins of lex talionis exist, but a common one is that it developed as early civilizations grew and a less well-established system for retribution of wrongs, feuds and vendettas, threatened the social fabric.
Despite having been replaced with newer modes of legal theory, lex talionis systems served a critical purpose in the development of social systems — the establishment of a body whose purpose was to enact the retaliation and ensure that this was the only punishment. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms.
The principle is found in Babylonian Law. It is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. The retribution might be worse than the crime, perhaps even death.
Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society. As with blasphemy or lèse-majesté (crimes against a god or a monarch), crimes against one’s social betters were punished more severely.
Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for vengeance. In cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still permitted if one person broke another’s limb.
Abrahamic traditions
In the Code of Hammurabi and Hebrew Law, the “eye for eye” was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss. Thus, it might be better read ‘only one eye for one eye’.
The biblical phrase “an eye for an eye” in Exodus and Leviticus (עין תחת עין, ayin tachat ayin) literally means ‘an eye in place of an eye’ while a slightly different phrase (עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן, literally “eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth”) is used another passage (in Deuteronomy) of the Jewish Bible, specifically, in the first of its three subdivisions, the Torah.
For example, a passage in Leviticus states, “And a man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow man just as he did, so shall be done to him [namely,] fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be inflicted upon him.
Judaism
Isaac Kalimi explains that the “lex talionis was humanized by the Rabbis who interpreted “an eye for an eye” to mean reasonable pecuniary compensation.
As in the case of the Babylonian ‘lex talionis’, ethical Judaism and humane Jewish jurisprudence replaces the peshat (literal meaning) of the written Torah.
Pasachoff and Littman point to the reinterpretation of the lex talionis as an example of the ability of Pharisaic Judaism to “adapt to changing social and intellectual ideasa
Talmud
The Talmud interprets the verses referring to “an eye for an eye” and similar expressions as mandating monetary compensation in tort cases and argues against the interpretations by Sadducees that the Bible verses refer to physical retaliation in kind, using the argument that such an interpretation would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted in this manner.
The Oral Law explains, based upon the biblical verses, that the Bible mandates a sophisticated five-part monetary form of compensation, consisting of payment for “Damages, Pain, Medical Expenses, Incapacitation, and Mental Anguish” — which underlies many modern legal codes. Some rabbinic literature explains, moreover, that the expression, “An eye for an eye, etc.” suggests that the perpetrator deserves to lose his own eye, but that biblical law treats him leniently. − Paraphrased from the Union of Orthodox Congregations
However, the Torah also discusses a form of direct reciprocal justice, where the phrase ayin tachat ayin makes another appearance.
Here, the Torah discusses false witnesses who conspire to testify against another person. The Torah requires the court to “do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother”.
Assuming the fulfillment of certain technical criteria (such as the sentencing of the accused whose punishment was not yet executed), wherever it is possible to punish the conspirators with exactly the same punishment through which they had planned to harm their fellow, the court carries out this direct reciprocal justice (including when the punishment constitutes the death penalty). Otherwise, the offenders receive lashes.
Since there is no form of punishment in the Torah that calls for the maiming of an offender, there is no case where a conspiratorial false witness could possibly be punished by the court injuring to his eye, tooth, hand, or foot. There is one case where the Torah states “…and you shall cut off her hand…”
The sages of the Talmud understood the literal meaning of this verse as referring to a case where the woman is attacking a man in potentially lethal manner.
This verse teaches that, although one must intervene to save the victim, one may not kill a lethal attacker if it is possible to neutralize that attacker through non-lethal injury. Regardless, there is no verse that even appears to mandate injury to the eye, tooth, or foot.
Numbers 35:9–30 discusses the only form of remotely reciprocal justice not carried out directly by the court, where, under very limited circumstances, someone found guilty of negligent manslaughter may be killed by a relative of the deceased who takes on the role of “redeemer of blood”.
In such cases, the court requires the guilty party to flee to a designated city of refuge. While the guilty party is there, the “redeemer of blood” may not kill him. If, however, the guilty party illegally forgoes his exile, the “redeemer of blood”, as an accessory of the court, may kill the guilty party.
Nevertheless, the provision of the “redeemer of blood” does not serve as true reciprocal justice, because the redeemer only acts to penalize a negligent killer who forgoes his exile.
Furthermore, intentional killing does not parallel negligent killing and thus cannot serve directly as a reciprocal punishment for manslaughter, but as a penalty for escaping punishment.
According to traditional Jewish Law, application of these laws requires the presence and maintenance of the biblically designated cities of refuge, as well as a conviction in an eligible court of 23 judges as delineated by the Torah and Talmud. The latter condition is also applicable for any capital punishment. These circumstances have not existed for approximately 2,000 years.
Objective of reciprocal justice in Judaism
The Talmud discusses the concept of justice as measure-for-measure retribution (middah k’neged middah) in the context of divinely implemented justice.
Regarding reciprocal justice by court, however, the Torah states that punishments serve to remove dangerous elements from society (“…and you shall eliminate the evil from your midst”) and to deter potential criminals from violating the law (“And the rest shall hear and be daunted, and they shall no longer commit anything like this evil deed in your midst”). Additionally, reciprocal justice in tort cases serves to compensate the victim
The ideal of vengeance for the sake of assuaging the distress of the victim plays no role in the Torah’s conception of court justice, as victims are cautioned against even hating or bearing a grudge against those who have harmed them.
The Torah makes no distinction between whether the potential object of hatred or a grudge has been brought to justice, and all people are taught to love their fellow human beings.
Social hierarchy and reciprocal justice
In Exodus 21, as in the Code of Hammurabi, the concept of reciprocal justice seemingly applies to social equals; the statement of reciprocal justice “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” is followed by an example of a different law: if a slave-owner blinds the eye or knocks out the tooth of a slave, the slave is freed but the owner pays no other consequence. On the other hand, the slave would probably be put to death for the injury of the eye of the slave-owner.
However the reciprocal justice applies across social boundaries: the “eye for eye” principle is directly followed by the proclamation “You are to have one law for the alien and the citizen.”
This shows a much more meaningful principle for social justice, in that the marginalized in society were given the same rights under the social structure. In this context, the reciprocal justice in an ideal functioning setting, according to Michael Coogan, “to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands and exacting disproportionate vengeance for offenses committed against them
Christianity
Christian interpretation of the Biblical passage has been heavily influenced by the Church father St. Augustine. He already discussed in his Contra Faustum, Book XIX, the points of ‘fulfilment or destruction’ of the Jewish law.
George Robinson characterizes the passage of Exodus (“an eye for an eye”) as one of the “most controversial in the Bible”. According to Robinson, some have pointed to this passage as evidence of the vengeful nature of justice in the Hebrew Bible.
Similarly, Abraham Bloch speculates that the “lex talionis has been singled out as a classical example of biblical harshness.”[31] Harry S. Lewis points to Lamech, Gideon and Samson as Biblical heroes who were renowned for “their prowess in executing blood revenge upon their public and private enemies.”
Lewis asserts that this “right of ‘wild’ justice was gradually limited.” Stephen Wylen asserts that the lex talionis is “proof of the unique value of each individual” and that it teaches “equality of all human beings for law.”
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus of Nazareth urges his followers to turn the other cheek rather than to seek legal steps for any compensation that corresponds in kind and degree to the injury:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Mt 5:38–39, NRSV)
This saying of Jesus is generally interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as implying that “an eye for an eye” encourages excessive vengeance rather than an attempt to limit it.[citation needed]
The Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement alludes to the doctrine of lex talionis. The position of Arminianism (the opposite line to Calvinism) is that Jesus suffered on the cross as a token atonement for all of humankind, whereas the Calvinistic position (under the doctrine of limited atonement) is that Jesus suffered the punishment due to the sins of all those who have been elected for Heaven in a lex talionis fashion, i.e. like-for-like.
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Two wrongs make a right
In rhetoric and ethics, two wrongs make a right and two wrongs don’t make a right are phrases that denote philosophical norms.
“Two wrongs make a right” is a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation. Its antithesis, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another’s transgression.
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person
“justifies” an action against a person by asserting that the
person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not
necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following
pattern of “reasoning”:
- It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
- It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A’s doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because an action
that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.
It should be noted that it can be the case that it is not wrong for A
to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done
in justified retribution. For example, if Sally is running in the park
and Biff tries to attack her, Sally would eb jsutified in attacking Biff
to defend herself.
As another example, if country A is planning to
invade country B in order to enslave the people, then country B would be
justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent the invasion.
Examples of Two Wrongs Make a Right
- Bill has borrowed Jane’s expensive pen, but found he didn’t
return it. He tell’s himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would
have taken his. - Jane: “Did you hear about those terrorists killing those poor people? That sort of killing is just wrong.”
Sue: “Those terrorists are justified. After all, their land was
taken from them. It is morally right for them to do what they do.”Jane: “Even when they blow up busloads of children?”
Sue: “Yes.”
- After leaving a store, Jill notices that she has underpaid by
$10. She decides not to return the money to the store because if she had
overpaid, they would not have returned the money. - Jill is horrified by the way the state uses capital punishment.
Bill says that capital punishment is fine, since those the state kill
don’t have any qualms about killing others.
Revenge spells http://www.revengespells.co.za/
Why revenge is good http://www.revengespells.co.za/why-revenge-is-good.html
What is revenge http://www.revengespells.co.za/what-is-revenge.html
Revenge quotes http://www.revengespells.co.za/revenge-quotes.html
Powerful revenge spells by Mama Hadija http://www.revengespells.co.za
Mama Hadija http://www.mamahadija.com
Love spells http://mamahadija.com/love-spells.html
Revenge spells http://mamahadija.com/revenge-spells.html
Money spells http://mamahadija.com/money-spells.html
Revenge spells 