# Revenge or Consequences?



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Another thread on forgiveness made me think about this. 

Just exactly what is the difference between revenge and consequences? 

Can they look like one and the same?

If so, how do you tell them apart?

Please discuss. I have been pondering this a long time. To me, the results of either can be the same. I think the actions taken can be one and the same. 

Maybe this isn't so and I'm confused? Maybe it's all just perspective? I'm guessing that in most cases, it's just perspective. If you are on the receiving end, they won't look much different. Only the intentions of the giver will allow one to know the difference. 

What do you think? Why do you think that? How can you prove your point? Do you have any examples of each or one from your own life and would you care to share?


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

I think they are two totally different things. Revenge comes from a place of bitterness, getting someone back, pay back, anger etc.

Consequences are the end result of something that happened, the natural order of things.

I realise this is in the infidelity section, I came here via the most recent threads link. I have never dealt with infidelity so my answer is of a general nature.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

I agree with Holland,
They are different.

similar if someone breaks the law and goes to jail it is not out of revenge.

or if a BS goes straight to divorce because of infidelity it is a consequences.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

So consequences as you understand them, don't require any actions. They happen like maybe playing the fool and racing cars on a street and someone has an accident and gets hurt. No one tricked them into racing on a street or without safety devices. They decided on their own and this accident is what happens sometimes? 

If revenge comes from a place of bitterness, then by using the scenario above, someone would have to have tricked or talked them into racing in and unsafe and illegal place, egging them on to get them angry enough to race, knowing the chances of an accident were high?

I thought this would be a great place to talk about revenge vs. consequences.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
To me revenge is putting effort into making someone else unhappy, for no other gain. That is also exactly why it never seems like a good idea - they lose, but you also lose because of the effort you spent to make them suffer.


----------



## convert (Oct 4, 2013)

I believe

consequences do take action.

It takes action to divorce or if R is the goal it also takes action, such as maybe MC, transparence, 2 to 5 years of R takes a lot of action.

although it does not take much or any action to rug sweep


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> So consequences as you understand them, don't require any actions. They happen like maybe playing the fool and racing cars on a street and someone has an accident and gets hurt. No one tricked them into racing on a street or without safety devices. They decided on their own and this accident is what happens sometimes?
> 
> If revenge comes from a place of bitterness, then by using the scenario above, someone would have to have tricked or talked them into racing in and unsafe and illegal place, egging them on to get them angry enough to race, knowing the chances of an accident were high?
> 
> I thought this would be a great place to talk about revenge vs. consequences.


That is a fair example.

My ex is anaphylactic to peanuts:
Revenge would be me putting ground peanuts in his dinner because he pissed me off. Equals me being a horrible person.

Consequence would be him knowing eating a satay stick and going into shock. Equals him now having to suffer the consequences of his own actions.

End result is the same but I had no input into the second scenario.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I think divorce is a consequence. 

When punishment is given to children for things they've done wrong, we say it is consequences for actions. 

I do agree, but there seems to be an overlap in our marriages and relationships, even outside of the relationships into our everyday lives. Do you think folks tend to blur the lines of what revenge and consequences are due to what they believe are just reactions and/or responses for perceived injustice to themselves?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

convert said:


> I believe
> 
> consequences do take action.
> 
> ...


See, what Holland posted was sort of what I was taught my my mother. Consequences do not require or have actions by another. It's kind of a simplistic and ideal way of looking at it, but I respect it and do believe it's true, until we come to adulthood.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Holland said:


> That is a fair example.
> 
> My ex is anaphylactic to peanuts:
> Revenge would be me putting ground peanuts in his dinner because he pissed me off. Equals me being a horrible person.
> ...


Yeah, that's what I was taught.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I think divorce is a consequence.
> 
> When punishment is given to children for things they've done wrong, we say it is consequences for actions.
> 
> I do agree, but there seems to be an overlap in our marriages and relationships, even outside of the relationships into our everyday lives. Do you think folks tend to blur the lines of what revenge and consequences are due to what they believe are just reactions and/or responses for perceived injustice to themselves?


OK I'm not quite getting what you are saying.

When you punish a child is not done for revenge (unless we are talking about crazy parents) but done as a consequence to teach them a life lesson. As the parent we are there to guide and teach our children so when the go out into the world they can survive.

As adults we have to take responsibility for our actions. In the case of divorce it is a consequence for our actions/lack of action. I have never heard of anyone initiating a divorce for revenge but if they did then surely they would be making the divorce even worse on themselves.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld ep. where he returns the jacket "for spite" too funny, Sorry way OT


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Holland said:


> OK I'm not quite getting what you are saying.
> 
> When you punish a child is not done for revenge (unless we are talking about crazy parents) but done as a consequence to teach them a life lesson. As the parent we are there to guide and teach our children so when the go out into the world they can survive.


It was a bit of a confusing statement. I agree with you above. Sometimes I think adults treat other adults like children, giving them "consequences" for things perceived as hurtful or maybe just because they don't like them, they will not warn them of some "accident" they see coming. They might lure them into impending trouble.

I'd say that's more in the category of revenge than consequence, but I may be very wrong since no one has an obligation to protect another. Just trying to understand the deeper intricacies of revenge and consequence.



Holland said:


> As adults we have to take responsibility for our actions. In the case of divorce it is a consequence for our actions/lack of action. I have never heard of anyone initiating a divorce for revenge but if they did then surely they would be making the divorce even worse on themselves.
> 
> Reminds me of the Seinfeld ep. where he returns the jacket "for spite" too funny, Sorry way OT


I agree with you about divorce being a consequence for in/action(s). I don't think I've ever heard of someone divorcing out of revenge either.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

Action with intent to hurt = Revenge 

Action with intent to help/guide = Consequence (i.e. disciplining a child, passing down a prison sentence)

Action/Inaction on the part of the "perpetrator" that results in hurt/pain, but no intent = Consequence (i.e. getting a speeding ticket)

Action on the part of the "victim" without ill intent = Consequence (i.e. When I move out, STBX will no longer have someone to take his dogs out all day and will have to start making the kids' lunches when he has them, go in later to work, be worse off financially because of having nobody to split bills with (well, until he moves OW in if that's that dumb)....these are consequences for him....not my revenge.)


----------



## F-102 (Sep 15, 2010)

Consequences naturally occur. Revenge is consequences that are helped along.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

F-102 said:


> Consequences naturally occur. Revenge is consequences that are helped along.


Yeah I like 

but

"revenge is consequences that are helped along" (while an interesting thought) isn't the natural order of things so it just becomes plain old revenge at the end of the day.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

Holland said:


> Yeah I like
> 
> but
> 
> "revenge is consequences that are helped along" (while an interesting thought) *isn't the natural order of things so it just becomes plain old revenge at the end of the day.*


Agreed.

And more often than not, those consequences would not have occurred without action on the part of the victim.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And more often than not, those consequences would not have occurred without action on the part of the victim.


Actually, those consequences wouldn't have occurred without the actions on the part of the betrayer.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

3putt said:


> Actually, those consequences wouldn't have occurred without the actions on the part of the betrayer.


But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right? 

Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right?
> 
> Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.


My logic says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Cause and effect. Seems to me you're trying to find every reason and excuse in the book to avoid making him pay the price for his actions. 

I don't understand that at all.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

3putt said:


> My logic says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Cause and effect. Seems to me you're trying to find every reason and excuse in the book to avoid making him pay the price for his actions.
> 
> I don't understand that at all.



I see it more as a way to just avoid more of his wrath. Self preservation while I bide my time. Adding a couple extra minutes to my already lengthy grocery shopping trip is worth it to me to avoid him insulting me for being a ***** and not getting him those few things. We split all bills now anyway, so even if he goes out and gets the food, I'll be paying half of it. Maybe that's some sort of excuse and I'm too much of a conflict avoider. I'm willing to tack on that label to myself.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right?
> 
> Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.


Ahh, you have found the reason for my odd question that Holland said she didn't understand. Some think consequences are not revenge, when I believe they actually are, in some cases. 

In my mind, anyway, pure consequences are as Holland described. There is not action or inaction from another. I drove too fast around a sharp curve and had an accident, smashing my car to bits. No one else was involved. I didn't tell anyone I would be traveling fast along that road, who knew it had sharp bends, and no one told me I could make up time by traveling faster along that road. It was all up to me and the consequences were, I got into an accident.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> I see it more as a way to just avoid more of his wrath. Self preservation while I bide my time. Adding a couple extra minutes to my already lengthy grocery shopping trip is worth it to me to avoid him insulting me for being a ***** and not getting him those few things. We split all bills now anyway, so even if he goes out and gets the food, I'll be paying half of it. *Maybe that's some sort of excuse and I'm too much of a conflict avoider. I'm willing to tack on that label to myself.*


That's the bottom line right there. You've found every excuse in the book to not stand up for yourself. He'll never stop this crap until you do start standing tall and not allow him to treat you like this.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right?
> 
> Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.


Why are you buying him food for lunches? TBH STR just get on with your life. Here is something to think about, the consequence of you still acting like his wife are going to hurt you. 

As they say, the best revenge is to live a happy life, Get on with yours lovely, the sooner the better.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right?
> 
> Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). *Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.*


And, no, the consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk is you not buying anything for his lunch at all, as also suggested by your own counselor.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I get the impression she is a sweetheart who just wants to be a good wife and mother. She wants that life and loved it as it was, not knowing that he was doing or wanting anything else than the life they had together. Someone that content is just fodder for a cheating spouse. I imagine he has little to no respect for her and she takes any little scrap of a compliment from him to feel like she is worthwhile. Trouble is, from what I've read of her posts and know of her, she's a catch. She's high on the list of great women out there and she doesn't even know it.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I get the impression she is a sweetheart who just wants to be a good wife and mother. She wants that life and loved it as it was, not knowing that he was doing or wanting anything else than the life they had together. Someone that content is just fodder for a cheating spouse. I imagine he has little to no respect for her and she takes any little scrap of a compliment from him to feel like she is worthwhile. Trouble is, from what I've read of her posts and know of her, she's a catch. She's high on the list of great women out there and she doesn't even know it.


I couldn't agree more. She sounds like someone I would be proud to call a friend. That's why I hate so much to see her not stand up for herself.


----------



## Foolish Man (Apr 16, 2015)

I hope I'm not thread jacking here but I'll share a recent experience. When my WW completed graduate school I bought her brand new car. I had worked a lot of overtime while she was in school and maintained and built our savings, most of which I expended to buy the car. In less than six months she was driving that car off to fvck her POSOM while I was at work. Her new job didn't pay well so I felt I was working hard to keep up the payments on her car.

Since Dday it has been eating at me. I drove the old car to work, she the new one to cheat. I felt it was an appropriate consequence that she should no longer have the new car. I finally got some balls and made her switch cars.

I think this was a consequence. Was it also revenge?

It turns out she is happier with the old car. I hadn't consulted her on the new car and bought what I thought she would like because I liked it. I now have a motorcycle which I vastly prefer to any car, so we will probably sell the new car eliminating the debt and payment (the net loss won't be much).

I wanted her to know how hurt and angry I was that she had used a special gift to cheat on me with, and I think I have made that clear. At the same time I have learned about my egotism and failure to understand my W's desires. As she is happy with the old car there is no revenge and I feel good about that. I wanted her to understand my pain and anger and I think she does. I can honestly say that I am glad I have not made her suffer or be unhappy. I realize that although in my pain and anger I may have wanted her to feel my unhappiness, in reality hurting someone doesn't make anybody feel good. Making someone you love and want to R with unhappy is counterproductive and feels like shyte.

Revenge carries the intent to hurt. Consequences are the results of actions. The consequence of her actions was that I was no longer willing to extend that gift. Rather than being frustrated that revenge didn't occur, I am pleased that my feelings were expressed and acknowledged and she is not hurt. The only pain she needs to experience can come from herself as a consequence of realizing what she has done. I don't want or need to inflict suffering on her. Although I need to feel she is remorseful that will have to come from her, not as a result of my actions.

All that said, if she cheats again (or has gone underground) retribution would be merciless. As for the POSOM well that's a whole other story...


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> I see it more as a way to just avoid more of his wrath. Self preservation while I bide my time. *Adding a couple extra minutes to my already lengthy grocery shopping trip is worth it to me to avoid him insulting me for being a ***** and not getting him those few things.* We split all bills now anyway, so even if he goes out and gets the food, I'll be paying half of it. Maybe that's some sort of excuse and I'm too much of a conflict avoider. I'm willing to tack on that label to myself.


But it didn't avoid it he still gave you grief. Maybe even if you bought him gold plated yogurt he would have still insulted you.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

3putt said:


> I couldn't agree more. She sounds like someone I would be proud to call a friend. That's why I hate so much to see her not stand up for herself.


I'm betting it's duty. She knows what her duty is as a wife and mother and is dedicated to that. She knows he's an ass. She isn't stupid. She's really quite intelligent. She just respects others opinions and doesn't push her own desires or needs onto anyone, so they don't know who she is or what she wants and can't provide it or choose to move on.

I'm telling you, she's way too good for her cheating husband. I bet he's subtly worked on her self-confidence, reducing it so he would not be suspected of any infidelity or nefarious deeds. Had to use that word. I didn't, but I wanted to cause I'm a bit childish and I like "nefarious".


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

Holland said:


> *Why are you buying him food for lunches?* TBH STR just get on with your life. Here is something to think about, the consequence of you still acting like his wife are going to hurt you.
> 
> As they say, the best revenge is to live a happy life, Get on with yours lovely, the sooner the better.


I am moving 3 weeks from today. I am getting on with my life. 

When we were "together" we had a division of bills where he paid the mortgage and car payments and I paid everything else (groceries, utilities,etc.) When everything exploded, he insisted on splitting EVERYTHING 50/50 so he could "prove how much more he contributed." (I have no clue why that is so important because we never fought about money). This is something we went back and forth on when drawing up the agreement, but finally came to an agreement about it. So, all receipts go in a bowl and are tallied up at the end of the month. He told me, "just add them all up at the end of the month and give me what you owe me." I said, "No. YOU add them up at the end of the month if it is so important to you." (Of course I double check his math). Sometimes he does the shopping, sometimes I do. We are both still shopping for the entire family, so that's why I just throw his lunch items in. I really do not see it as a big deal. I'm not making an extra trip out. AND, I'm purchasing a lot of extras these days to set up my new house (staples, cleaning supplies) so he's paying for that stuff, too, although I have no clue if he's noticed since I pack it in boxes as soon as I get home.

I am not letting him walk all over me, trust me. More often than not, I am standing up for myself. Here's an example of a text conversation we had on Friday about the utility/cable bills that are all in my name. 

POS: Did you get the bills changed over to my name yet?
Me: No, I told you that you had to do that.
POS: I can't cancel the service for you (my name)!!!!! All you have to do is cancel the service so I can get it connected. Tell me the date.
Me: I told you already that I think you can just call and have my name taken off and your name put on. I can't make that change for you.
POS: Forget it, I'll explain the process to you when I get home! This does not have to be so difficult.
Me: I'm not trying to be difficult. If you want me to call and cancel and then you have to pay to get service reconnected, be my guest.
POS: Call the companies and see if we can just transfer the services to my name.
Me: You can call the companies yourself.
POS: Text me the account numbers and phone numbers then.
Me: I put the bills on the steps (leading up to his room). They have the phone numbers and account numbers on them.

Later that night....

POS: Electric is transferred over to my name, gas is sending me a form I have to fill out, and for the cable we have to go to the office and do it in person.
Me: No thanks. I'll just have the service transferred to my new house and you can pay for activation of new service here.
POS: Whatever you want, ____!

THAT is more like how things are going around here. I will, however, choose my battles and buying yogurt and tuna fish just isn't high on my list. (To clarify, I'm not paying for these items FOR him....we split the cost of all groceries....and if I feel like some yogurt or a can of tuna, I eat it!)

(You may be wondering why I didn't just have the cable transferred in the first place so I would not have to pay the activation fee. It was just because of hassle to me because I'm going to need to go to the Comcast office to return a couple boxes we're not using, etc. I was willing to pay the activation fee on new service for myself just to avoid the hassle. However, if I have to go to the office anyway in order to transfer it to his name, I'm just taking the service/equipment with me.)


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> I'm betting it's duty. She knows what her duty is as a wife and mother and is dedicated to that. She knows he's an ass. She isn't stupid. She's really quite intelligent. She just respects others opinions and doesn't push her own desires or needs onto anyone, so they don't know who she is or what she wants and can't provide it or choose to move on.
> 
> I'm telling you, she's way too good for her cheating husband. I bet he's subtly worked on her self-confidence, reducing it so he would not be suspected of any infidelity or nefarious deeds. Had to use that word. I didn't, but I wanted to cause I'm a bit childish and I like "nefarious".


Thank you for your kind words. You are very sweet. 

I also like the word nefarious. And I LOVE the phrase, "chit-chat!" 

Sorry to threadjack your thread, @2tnuf!


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

Holland said:


> *But it didn't avoid it he still gave you grief.* Maybe even if you bought him gold plated yogurt he would have still insulted you.


Haha, well that is true. (But I didn't take the bait and just walked away instead of engaging.....looking back, I maybe should have said, "then buy your own damn yogurt," but I know how our fights get and I'm just so over it.). 

3 more weeks.....


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

FM,

You said,


> Revenge carries the intent to hurt. Consequences are the results of actions. The consequence of her actions was that I was no longer willing to extend that gift.


I have a question about this. First, let me say that I would want to do the very same. Second, I don't know if it's revenge or consequence, since it was a gift. If it was a gift, then it is her's and she can do as she pleases with it. 

Let me explain. What if she didn't wash it or wax it as often as you liked? What if she didn't clean it out as often as you liked? What if she had a lead foot from a stop and you didn't like that because you knew it would not be good for the car or gas mileage? What if you told her these concerns of yours and she didn't care? Would you take it from her and make her use the old one? 

Yes, these are legitimate thoughts and questions I have and not something I have made up to test you.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

Foolish Man said:


> I hope I'm not thread jacking here but I'll share a recent experience. When my WW completed graduate school I bought her brand new car. I had worked a lot of overtime while she was in school and maintained and built our savings, most of which I expended to buy the car. In less than six months she was driving that car off to fvck her POSOM while I was at work. Her new job didn't pay well so I felt I was working hard to keep up the payments on her car.
> 
> Since Dday it has been eating at me. I drove the old car to work, she the new one to cheat. I felt it was an appropriate consequence that she should no longer have the new car. I finally got some balls and made her switch cars.
> 
> ...


I think this is an example of a consequence and not revenge because of the intent. You've clearly stated your intent was not to hurt her, it was so reveal your own feelings about her act.

For me, the bottom line is intent.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> Thank you for your kind words. You are very sweet.
> 
> I also like the word nefarious. And I LOVE the phrase, "chit-chat!"
> 
> Sorry to threadjack your thread, @2tnuf!


There is no thread-jacking here. It's a conversation at the local coffee shop and we're all sitting around eating a cookie/favorite biscotti or something, and having a hot beverage.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> I think this is an example of a consequence and not revenge because of the intent. You've clearly stated your intent was not to hurt her, it was so reveal your own feelings about her act.
> 
> For me, the bottom line is intent.


I sort of feel the opposite and I want to point back to the definition Holland gave as proof. He provided consequences. She isn't a child to be taught a lesson or shown how to act. So, I have to come down on the side of revenge or at least lean that way. That's why I brought up children in that one post. And this is pretty much the reason for the thread. It's not clear to me.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

For me, the word consequence is a relatively neutral term that refers to the event that follows as a result of something. There are all types of consequences, positive, negative and in between. Some consequences are conscious, planned, and purposeful. Some are karmic, etc.

In my own usage of the word, revenge is just one type of consequence. With revenge, the person who has been wronged (or thinks he/she has been wronged) is the aggressive agent of the consequence, which is always negative. The agency is important for the definition of the word, since many other types of consequences have different types of agents.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> There is no thread-jacking here. It's a conversation at the local coffee shop and we're all sitting around eating a cookie/favorite biscotti or something, and having a hot beverage.


Make mine a double rum and coke.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

alte Dame said:


> For me, the word consequence is a relatively neutral term that refers to the event that follows as a result of something. There are all types of consequences, positive, negative and in between. Some consequences are conscious, planned, and purposeful. Some are karmic, etc.
> 
> In my own usage of the word, revenge is just one type of consequence. With revenge, the person who has been wronged (or thinks he/she has been wronged) is the *aggressive agent of the consequence*, which is always negative. The agency is important for the definition of the word, since many other types of consequences have different types of agents.


Ooooh, I like that! You're a smart one, @alte Dame!


----------



## NoChoice (Feb 12, 2012)

I believe revenge to quite often be a consequence.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

NoChoice said:


> I believe revenge to quite often be a consequence.


As in, "Hey, you're the jackass who betrayed me, so consequently, here's my revenge!" ? :grin2:

I can see that logic. When I dissect, though, I still see them differently based on intent.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

NoChoice said:


> I believe revenge to quite often be a consequence.


Unless I'm mistaken, that's what alte Dame is saying. Please correct me aD, if I am.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> As in, "Hey, you're the jackass who betrayed me, so consequently, here's my revenge!" ? :grin2:
> 
> I can see that logic. When I dissect, though, I still see them differently based on intent.


Ever been accused of thinking and dissecting too much? 


:grin2:


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

3putt said:


> Ever been accused of thinking and dissecting too much?
> 
> 
> :grin2:


Who, me???? 0


(Yes, all the time....)


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> Who, me???? 0
> 
> 
> (Yes, all the time....)


Me too. Oh well. 

So if we are given consequences or revenge for in/actions, are we expected to return the favor or does the one who provided those "consequences" expect some "consequences" in return? 

Do they treat us differently due to their uneasiness waiting for the hammer to fall and treat us with undeserved detachment?

Who decides when enough is enough? How does one judge that their "consequences" fit the "crime"?


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, that's what alte Dame is saying. Please correct me aD, if I am.


Yes, it's taxonomic, in a way.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> Yes, it's taxonomic, in a way.


I had to look that up. Classification into ordered categories? Have to think about that.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> Me too. Oh well.
> 
> So if we are given consequences or revenge for in/actions, are we expected to return the favor or does the one who provided those "consequences" expect some "consequences" in return?
> 
> ...


Entirely dependent on the situation, but I think a cycle of continuous "consequences" is no way to live. It's the exact opposite of moving on from whatever the situation/event is.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

SecondTime'Round said:


> Entirely dependent on the situation, but I think a cycle of continuous "consequences" is no way to live. It's the exact opposite of moving on from whatever the situation/event is.


I agree. 

I think there are plenty of folks out there who wait years for the right moment in time to repay or give consequences for unforgotten and unforgiven pains. I think that's just as poisonous.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

Consequences are "cause & effect"- if you do "this", then "that" will be the result upon you. Like a speeding ticket for speeding. Generally, they are natural (based upon ones inclinations and dispositions) and directly based on the offense.

Revenge is more arbitrary and rather than "cause & effect", is designed and intended to inflict harm only. It is generally out of proportion to the offense.

My thought is that consequences should always be mandatory, but revenge should be avoided.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

thatbpguy said:


> Consequences are "cause & effect"- if you do "this", then "that" will be the result upon you. Like a speeding ticket for speeding. Generally, they are natural (based upon ones inclinations and dispositions) and directly based on the offense.
> 
> Revenge is more arbitrary and rather than "cause & effect", is designed and intended to inflict harm only. It is generally out of proportion to the offense.
> 
> My thought is that consequences should always be mandatory, but revenge should be avoided.


Okay, this is a heck of a reach. So, if your spouse cheats on you, you have every right to cheat on her? It's a consequence of the behavior which lets you know she is okay with an open marriage? Or, maybe you could avoid sex with her after that and then just look for and have sex with other women, but come home to her and treat her reasonably like a normal spouse? Or, would that be revenge? If so, why?


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

I wonder what people here think of the difference between revenge and comeuppance?


----------



## drifting on (Nov 22, 2013)

SecondTime'Round said:


> But then that's a consequence twice removed or something, right?
> 
> Last night I almost threw all the yogurt I bought STBX for his lunches this week because he gave me a hard time about what kind I bought and it wasn't enough. (My counselor tells me to stop buying his lunch food for him at all). Had I thrown them out the window, that would have been revenge, not a consequence. With your logic, it would be a consequence of him being an ungrateful jerk.



Revenge would have been putting ex-lax in the yogurt!! Hehe
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

drifting on said:


> Revenge would have been putting ex-lax in the yogurt!! Hehe
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


With an Ambien.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

War is a consequence of attack and betrayal.

I am very good at war.

Was it revenge to obliterate Japan after their betrayal and attack?

I am for retaliation. Maybe that is not revenge.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

I want to use the specific example of exposure once evidence of an affair is found. 

I believe it would be a consequence of the Disloyal Spouse choosing to commit adultery to have the truth brought to light. In other words, the true facts presented to family, the OP's spouse, and if they are involved, friends or co-workers. Some examples of additional "consequences" would be to stop paying for the DS's cell phone (if that's what they used to facilitate the affair), stop doing whatever actions you were doing that helped make the affair "easier," telling the kids the truth in an age-appropriate way (in other words, not lying to the children), and stop meeting whatever needs you were meeting until there is conclusive evidence the affair is over. Chooses someone else to commit adultery = not getting "me" anymore, and sometimes that hurts and adulterers generally speaking do not want to deal with the pain of their own choices. 

If friends are not involved--then telling them would be revenge in the form of gossiping. If co-workers are not involved (it's not a "work affair")--then telling them would be revenge. Revenge would also be damaging property, putting the kids in the middle, doing deliberate things just to hurt the DS such as burning a work file or deleting their hard drive... 

The main difference I see is indeed intent but also TRUTH. A consequence is pretty much revealing the truth and letting nature take its course (even if the course is somewhat painful) while treating the DS with the level of respect you'd treat any other adult person. In a way, a consequence demonstrates that you think highly enough of the DS that you believe they can deal with their own choices! Revenge is not about revealing the truth, but rather HURTING...hurting them like they hurt you...and treating the DS with little or no respect. In a way, revenge demonstrates that you have little or no respect for the DS and that you believe you need to "teach them a lesson" or need to either control or parent them--as if you are superior and they are inferior.


----------



## Forest (Mar 29, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> War is a consequence of attack and betrayal.
> 
> I am very good at war.
> 
> ...


Japan: Most people are too short sighted to realize that the atom bombs ultimately saved a tremendous amount of Japanese lives by hastening their surrender. An invasion of their homeland by Allied troops would have resulted in unbelievable, catastrophic loss of life, and widespread destruction of their country. The firebombing that would have preceded the invasion would have killed more that the atomic bombs.

Revenge, consequences upon affair partners may look like basic retaliation, but on the whole may create a society with far less destruction and mayhem. Doing nothing never works.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> I wonder what people here think of the difference between revenge and comeuppance?


I'm feeling like this is similar to revenge, because it is. :grin2:


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> War is a consequence of attack and betrayal.
> 
> I am very good at war.
> 
> ...


There is a place where it becomes defense. I think that's the point where my life and livelihood is attacked. We can either surrender or fight back. In regular society, there are laws that prevent us from harming someone even in defense of our livelihood. Maybe there are other opinions?


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> There is a place where it becomes defense. I think that's the point where my life and livelihood is attacked. We can either surrender or fight back. In regular society, there are laws that prevent us from harming someone even in defense of our livelihood. Maybe there are other opinions?


Never heard of the 'Stand Your Ground' law? There are plenty of laws that allow us to cause harm to someone in the defense of our livelihood and lives as well.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

3putt said:


> Never heard of the 'Stand Your Ground' law? There are plenty of laws that allow us to cause harm to someone in the defense of our livelihood and lives as well.



I don't know that law. I've heard it spoken about in the news and never looked it up. Don't even think it is in PA, but I could be wrong.


----------



## 3putt (Dec 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I don't know that law. I've heard it spoken about in the news and never looked it up. Don't even think it is in PA, but I could be wrong.


It's in PA.

States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

3putt said:


> It's in PA.
> 
> States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws - FindLaw


Didn't see when it was enacted. Thank you.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Okay, this is a heck of a reach. So, if your spouse cheats on you, you have every right to cheat on her? It's a consequence of the behavior which lets you know she is okay with an open marriage? Or, maybe you could avoid sex with her after that and then just look for and have sex with other women, but come home to her and treat her reasonably like a normal spouse? Or, would that be revenge? If so, why?


No, there is no "right" to betray her (or a him) in spite of what they have done. Someone has to be the adult. That's revenge.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

thatbpguy said:


> No, there is no "right" to betray her (or a him) in spite of what they have done. Someone has to be the adult. That's revenge.


True, but a need is not being met...the need for monogamy. The contract is broken. So, why is it revenge? If revenge is about hurting someone, how would she be hurt? It's not doing something far and away beyond what she has done. It's exactly the same and seems like more of a consequence than anything else. 

Something to think about, I guess.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Revenge - the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.

Consequences - the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.

Revenge requires human action and purpose.

Consequences are often natural or the result of law/rules ... 


drive your car into a tree and the consequence is that your car is ruined and our are dead or seriously injured.

Touch a hot stove.. you burn your hand.

Break the law... go to prison, pay a fine, etc.


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> True, but a need is not being met...the need for monogamy. The contract is broken. So, why is it revenge? If revenge is about hurting someone, how would she be hurt? It's not doing something far and away beyond what she has done. It's exactly the same and seems like more of a consequence than anything else.
> 
> Something to think about, I guess.


Not really to think about.

Wrong is wrong and always will be.


----------



## Foolish Man (Apr 16, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> FM,
> 
> You said,
> 
> ...


As it was still being paid for it was a gift in process. If I had the money and had paid for it outright, I would have considered it hers to do with as she wished.

In answer to your questions, if she was not caring for it properly it would depend on the extremity. As a point of fact she is very good with driving habits, maintenance and upkeep, part of the reason I gave her the new car, she has done the work (my vehicle valet, another responsibility I don't need her to fulfill) and kept the old car in great shape. If her actions were deleterious the the vehicle and it's value I would raise the issue firmly but not make her switch cars.

However if she were drinking and driving, driving dangerously, driving while not safe etc. and I felt the new car was encouraging or facilitating (sporty vs sedan, her own to do with as she pleased) that I would not hesitate to remove the vehicle from her possession/use.

Quite frankly if she were using it in any way to be disrespectful towards me I would no longer be willing to extend the gift. I am setting boundaries and crossing those boundaries will have consequences. 

This is a point where I disagree with those positing that consequences are independent of human intervention. If you threaten my family (pull a gun on my brother) there will be consequences, not revenge. A consequence of such an action will be my action in response. Just as the legal system involves direct human intervention, a consequence of actions can be the response by a person, not just the unfolding of nature (nature can't really be abstracted from humanity anyway).

Thanks for reading and replying. I enjoy the discourse and hope to learn from it.


----------



## Foolish Man (Apr 16, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> I sort of feel the opposite and I want to point back to the definition Holland gave as proof. He provided consequences. She isn't a child to be taught a lesson or shown how to act. So, I have to come down on the side of revenge or at least lean that way. That's why I brought up children in that one post. And this is pretty much the reason for the thread. It's not clear to me.


To extend the discourse let's consider public disclosure. If a BS exposes and the WS is subject to embarrassment is this a human activated event of revenge or the consequence of the behavior of the BS.

Or perhaps violence, if you commit a violent act against a person is that persons reaction a consequence or revenge?

And what about inaction? If a BS were to not provide any financial support for a WS would the resulting hardship be considered a consequence or revenge?


----------



## Foolish Man (Apr 16, 2015)

alte Dame said:


> For me, the word consequence is a relatively neutral term that refers to the event that follows as a result of something. There are all types of consequences, positive, negative and in between. Some consequences are conscious, planned, and purposeful. Some are karmic, etc.
> 
> In my own usage of the word, revenge is just one type of consequence. With revenge, the person who has been wronged (or thinks he/she has been wronged) is the aggressive agent of the consequence, which is always negative. The agency is important for the definition of the word, since many other types of consequences have different types of agents.


I kind of go with this concept. If you poke a bear and it mauls you that is a consequence by all the proposed definitions. If you hurt a human and they react in a particular way how it that not within consequence but a specific form involving human intent. A total lack of human agency seems an unrealistic limitation for the definition of consequence.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Foolish Man said:


> To extend the discourse let's consider public disclosure. If a BS exposes and the WS is subject to embarrassment is this a human activated event of revenge or the consequence of the behavior of the BS.
> 
> Or perhaps violence, if you commit a violent act against a person is that persons reaction a consequence or revenge?
> 
> And what about inaction? If a BS were to not provide any financial support for a WS would the resulting hardship be considered a consequence or revenge?


I'm on the fence about exposure. Someone claimed that it was a consequence if exposed to those family members and friends who know what is going on. Although, others would be a sort of revenge. 

I think this is subjective. I think it depends on who is asked. In some cases, the only way to get rid of resentment is to talk it out. If one has to do that and they have problems, I'm not sure it's so much revenge as an attempt to heal which may be in vain. There isn't necessarily intent to harm. 

If a violent act is being committed against you and while you are being attacked you defend yourself and hurt them, well, that's just defending yourself. You have to protect yourself. Now, if later you go back and attack them, it's revenge. If you report the incident to the police, it's a consequence.

Not giving the WS money? Depends. First off, I think in the U.S. it is a mistake for a custodial parent to forgo filing for child support. Therefore, it's a consequence if she doesn't get any money. That doesn't relieve the bio father of his responsibility or negate the fact that he is a deadbeat dad, but I think that's a different story. I think depending on the situation...that's a tough one. I know of at least one woman who does not make her child's father pay through the courts. She would not tell me why and I let it go. He doesn't pay in a consistent or timely manner, but he does pay. I don't know why she puts up with it, but she does. 

If there are no children, I think it would depend on the arrangement in the marriage prior to the separation or divorce. If it was accepted and agreed upon that she would not work somewhere to collect a paycheck, then she must be doing something that is valuable to the household. I suppose that might not be true in all cases though. I think depending on her age, the years of marriage and the income situation, she has a right to get something. That's a sticky situation.


----------



## Foolish Man (Apr 16, 2015)

2ntnuf said:


> Me too. Oh well.
> 
> So if we are given consequences or revenge for in/actions, are we expected to return the favor or does the one who provided those "consequences" expect some "consequences" in return?
> 
> ...


OK I'll join the over thinking and analyzing club. Probably obvious already anyway.

To paragraph one, yes that would be the dynamics of human interaction. Hopefully we in this forum can move forward to positive consequences like, "You make me feel good, so I want to make you feel good".

To paragraph two. Hell yes, particularly those of us who dissect and analyze. They are waiting for us to reach some conclusions/decisions and act based on them. Some of us may be known to wield a mighty hammer. Don't know if the detachment is necessarily undeserved, if the WS thinks the BS is going to decide to file D papers or to take revenge, isn't some detachment simply a necessary human act of self preservation?

To paragraph three, what a complex and thorny question. IMO there is no "right" answer. It would seem that a healthy position would be actions taken with the intent to hurt (revenge) are not good. Where the line is, well I look forward to input.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Foolish Man said:


> I kind of go with this concept. If you poke a bear and it mauls you that is a consequence by all the proposed definitions. If you hurt a human and they react in a particular way how it that not within consequence but a specific form involving human intent. A total lack of human agency seems an unrealistic limitation for the definition of consequence.


I think that there is a subtle difference.

If you punch someone in the face and they punch you back... that's a consequence. 

Revenge would be if that person who punched you back then set about ruining your life, burned your house down, killed you dog and so forth.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Revenge is crushing them into the ground and doing everything to destroy them, maybe so they will lose everything, friends, family, job, money, reputation, etc

Consequences is revealing the secrets into the open so that they are forced to face their actions. This might also result in loss of face, money, friends, etc

But they are not the same. The first focuses on the person, the second on the actions.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Ahh, you have found the reason for my odd question that Holland said she didn't understand. Some think consequences are not revenge, when I believe they actually are, in some cases.
> 
> In my mind, anyway, pure consequences are as Holland described. There is not action or inaction from another. I drove too fast around a sharp curve and had an accident, smashing my car to bits. No one else was involved. I didn't tell anyone I would be traveling fast along that road, who knew it had sharp bends, and no one told me I could make up time by traveling faster along that road. It was all up to me and the consequences were, I got into an accident.


The problem with this comparison is you are taking relational dynamics between two people and comparing it to a non relational event (car crash). When you wreck in a relationship with poor behavior you crashed right into the God given personhood and liberties of your loved one. They at that point can express that pain and choose a corrective choice.

Now whether that corrective choice is constructive or destructive depends on the intent, vision and skill of the one injured.

STR could choose reactiveness, but she recognized that as not a best choice.

She could choose to speak calm assertive to her H about how to treat her appropriately, thus preserving her dignity and his.

If injury is severe enough then the corrective action needs distance.

Consequences by design honors the personhood and is impetus to choose better in the future.

Revenge is destructive retribution and does not honor the personhood.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

Revenge is the consequence of the denial of a trespass.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Revenge or Consequences? How about Revenge vs Justice?

Found this by Leon F Seltzer Ph.D. from "Evolution of the Self"



> *Don’t Confuse Revenge With Justice: Five Key Differences*
> 
> 1. Revenge is predominantly emotional; justice primarily rational
> 
> ...


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

How about some new terminology for these blurred lines:

Consequential Revenge
Justifiable Revenge
Revengeful Consequences
Consequential Justice


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

aine said:


> Revenge is crushing them into the ground and doing everything to destroy them, maybe so they will lose everything, friends, family, job, money, reputation, etc
> 
> Consequences is revealing the secrets into the open so that they are forced to face their actions. This might also result in loss of face, money, friends, etc
> 
> But they are not the same. The first focuses on the person, the second on the actions.


Somewhere I made a comment about perspective or subjective relating to this idea. I think it can have a different meaning to whomever is being asked. Of course, in the case of some heinous crime, consequences are that someone will likely lose all of those things.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Blossom Leigh said:


> The problem with this comparison is you are taking relational dynamics between two people and comparing it to a non relational event (car crash). When you wreck in a relationship with poor behavior you crashed right into the God given personhood and liberties of your loved one. They at that point can express that pain and choose a corrective choice.
> 
> Now whether that corrective choice is constructive or destructive depends on the intent, vision and skill of the one injured.
> 
> ...


Interesting. Let me just say that, as far as she is concerned, I wasn't giving any advice and didn't start this specifically for her situation or anyone's really. I think her and 3putt and/or some others were discussion her situation and making some comments. If she can glean anything from this discussion, great. I don't mind if she talks about her situation specifically or not. I don't mind if anyone does, because I know it's easier to understand in context and may well help someone else to understand. 

I like what I underlined. I have to read the rest again. I may have been too ambiguous with my example, and that's okay. The only relation to what you posted, I believe, is that if someone had told that person to drive quickly and they got into an accident on that road, and felt slighted by the driver before they told them which road to travel, it would have been revenge for something in my mind. 

Good points. I have to think about this more. There is a difference.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I think that there is a subtle difference.
> 
> If you punch someone in the face and they punch you back... that's a consequence.
> 
> Revenge would be if that person who punched you back then set about ruining your life, burned your house down, killed you dog and so forth.


Interesting twist. I didn't think of it this way, but personally, I would not think of the same person who threw the defensive punch as being vengeful, but I would the person who threw the first punch, if s/he set about doing the same. 

For me, it would be wrong to go further than punching back, if the point was made and that person who threw the first punch was hurt in the retaliation. Ah oh, there's a sticky situation using that word. It came out naturally, too. I think it would be overkill and probably illegal, but I'm not sure what law it would break. It would be vicious and morally wrong, in my opinion. 

If the consequences of the second punch thrown by the defender were not enough to cause a change in them, which is sort of reading into your post some, would it still be revenge to exact further punishment? Let's say after the second punch is thrown and the brawl ensues that there are property damages. Those are turned in to a lawyer and the initiator is made to fork over some cash. I think you would agree that is not revenge. So, if the person who sustained property damage could not go to court, but could exact consequences in some other way, would that be revenge? I think it's a somewhat gray area. Maybe I'm wrong?

Not sure how clear that is?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Jung_admirer said:


> Revenge is the consequence of the denial of a trespass.


Oh, that's interesting. 

So, I want to borrow the neighbor's lawnmower, but they tell me the last time I borrowed it, I brought it back with grass stuck to the bottom and there were twigs stuck in the engine cooling fins. They don't want their brand new $400.00 self propelled walk behind gasoline mower to be ruined in a season, so they tell me they will not lend it to me. 

I get angry and spread grass killer on their lawn, killing their hard won turf. Then, I go and spread weed killer on their prized clematis and blueberry bushes. That's surely revenge. 

Does that break down your post into a reasonable example?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

morituri said:


> Revenge or Consequences? How about Revenge vs Justice?
> 
> Found this by Leon F Seltzer Ph.D. from "Evolution of the Self"


The only reason I shy away from using the word justice is because it immediately brings to mind the consequences of breaking a law as set for by the governing body. Those are consequences, even when considered justice, but when one person does something in retaliation for a perceived injustice, there is no public consensus in writing and approved by all, like laws, that govern how far is too far or what is too little punishment, or consequences. 

There's another tricky word that can be used, punishment. Surely jail is punishment and less consequence, since I think we all tend to agree that consequences are meant to teach a lesson and hopefully change the person(s) being punished, improving them for reentry into society. Yeah, sure. Maybe in a very few cases.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Are revenge and consequences pretty much the same thing, but understood differently depending on who is being asked? Is it all perspective and a matter of majority opinion? 

Are consequences justice? Who has the right to judge? Justice is a consequence of being judged. 

Actually, justice, consequences and revenge can all be punishment. They are punishment that the majority decides is appropriate to the crimes or "crimes"(when they are not breaking the law). So, who has the right to punish based on their opinion? Isn't the problem with revenge or consequence really the opinion of the one who is asked? 

We all judge. We have to look at someone walking toward us at night and quickly determine if we should cross the street or grab the mace or just walk by and say hello as we pass. That's judging and we have to do it. So, I don't have a problem with judging in that manner, but what we do with that judgment can be wrong or right, in my opinion. 

I don't want to get into judging. I just wanted to explain my thinking. I am not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying this is how I think about it. I wrote it down because I don't think everyone thinks the same, and I believe it is part of the process of deciding if actions and reactions, or in some cases, responses are revenge or consequences.


----------



## Blossom Leigh (Mar 27, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Interesting. Let me just say that, as far as she is concerned, I wasn't giving any advice and didn't start this specifically for her situation or anyone's really. I think her and 3putt and/or some others were discussion her situation and making some comments. If she can glean anything from this discussion, great. I don't mind if she talks about her situation specifically or not. I don't mind if anyone does, because I know it's easier to understand in context and may well help someone else to understand.
> 
> I like what I underlined. I have to read the rest again. I may have been too ambiguous with my example, and that's okay. The only relation to what you posted, I believe, is that if someone had told that person to drive quickly and they got into an accident on that road, and felt slighted by the driver before they told them which road to travel, it would have been revenge for something in my mind.
> 
> Good points. I have to think about this more. There is a difference.



Yea, I knew this was exploring these topics just using examples from around here  Its an important topic and there *are* distinctions and I fully believe each person must choose which side they fall on and care to preserve their integrity with such. Great discussion. In my relationship it would have been easy to exact revenge. When you have someone screaming in your face, holding you down by your shirt collar, extreme emotional blackmail, cheating on you and gaslighting to the moon and back who wouldn't consider revenge. But it became about my own dignity and I gave him one shot to choose better to preserve our family in tact after sizing up he did in fact have the capacity to do so, whether he was willing was the only thing left to demonstrate. And he has...The change in our home is striking. I had an epic fail in the past couple of weeks, but it has since been handled with grace, mercy and walking forward in accountability and transparency. He could have taken revenge and but chose the opposite. This is good. I am a firm believer in not adding destruction to destruction so I appreciate him being constructive in the face of my destruction. It was the same choice I made of construction in the face of his destruction. These are the choices that heal a family.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Takes quite a pile of personal strength to do that Blossom. I hope you both can work through all of the "stuff" you are dealing with. I'm glad folks are joining in and consider this a reasonably important discussion. It is to me. I hoped all would have something to challenge thinking. We may not get to the bottom of everyone's issues, but I hope we are helping more than hurting. I know it's helping me to hash out some stuff in my head.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

When you look up a word in a good dictionary, you note that here are multiple word senses. The lexicographer has tried to offer the user the various language scenarios for the usage of that word. Important for this are other words that are always used in context with the given word. Or relevant subject area. Etc.

One thing people haven't addressed here is the variety of word senses for the word 'consequence.'

There is a usage difference between a meaning that neutrally refers to the thing that follows on something else and the thing that is actively decided on as punishment or discipline for that triggering event. In modern American English, the latter usage has become prevalent, originally in the language of teachers and parents, in order to find a nicer way to say 'punishment.' This usage of 'consequence' has drifted into other arenas, like the workplace and within domains like infidelity.

I think it is this newer usage of the word that is more interesting in a comparison with 'revenge.' It's also interesting to see what verbs the speaker uses in frames with the word 'revenge' and this latter word sense of 'consequence.' The verb frames do not map exactly, but are much closer than what you see with the first, more general, word sense for 'consequence.'


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I think that there is a subtle difference.
> 
> If you punch someone in the face and they punch you back... that's a consequence.
> 
> Revenge would be if that person who punched you back then set about ruining your life, burned your house down, killed you dog and so forth.


I see this a little different Ele....

Consequence of punching me in the face could be all kinds of things: try to get you charge for assault/battery, a retaliatory punch, a real fight, a physical escalation to include weapons. Those are all potential consequences.

I see revenge as an emotional eye for an eye. So revenge here could just be to punch back, inflicting similar damage. Done at a time and place of my choosing.

More commonly revenge is that I am now entitled to get my pay back in a method I deem 'fair'. So you punch me, I take your TV or some other valuable or money or damage your car.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> When you look up a word in a good dictionary, you note that here are multiple word senses. The lexicographer has tried to offer the user the various language scenarios for the usage of that word. Important for this are other words that are always used in context with the given word. Or relevant subject area. Etc.
> 
> One thing people haven't addressed here is the variety of word senses for the word 'consequence.'
> 
> ...


I seem to run into this all the time. I haven't educated myself in the newest meanings and usages of old familiar words and phrases. It's why I sometimes post a definition. We can't have a reasonable discussion unless everyone understands words and phrases to mean the same definitions intended by the author. It makes me look like some kind of word nazi, but it's only an attempt to clarify and have less emotional discussions.

Do you have a link or a quote for all to see?


----------



## ScrambledEggs (Jan 14, 2014)

Consequences are cause and effect.

Justice is when you personally are the agent of cause and effect, or the incarnation of karma against someone that wronged you.

Revenge is hurting someone where the purpose is to hurt them.

All three can exist in the same act and moment or on their own.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> I seem to run into this all the time. I haven't educated myself in the newest meanings and usages of old familiar words and phrases. It's why I sometimes post a definition. We can't have a reasonable discussion unless everyone understands words and phrases to mean the same definitions intended by the author. It makes me look like some kind of word nazi, but it's only an attempt to clarify and have less emotional discussions.
> 
> Do you have a link or a quote for all to see?


Here is Longman's Online. This is a dictionary that uses frames, for example, to define words:

consequence - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online

revenge - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online


----------

