An Eye for an Eye

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (97 posts)

74
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
I wrote a hub called Being Unique... In it I state,

"Being evil to evil is good, but it is also evil. Being brilliantly good saints at doing evil to evil is a greater evil to evil, but it also a greater good. This I call God's Paradox, because only God could have possibly created something this complex and it, to me is the proof that God is a being of Goodness even though God allows evil to exist.

Another way of saying this is, you really only have two choices, 1- to do good or 2- to do evil...either way you choose...your doing evil.

Remember do evil to evil by doing only good, the greater the good you do, the greater the evil you do to evil, and that makes it all alright."

I'm starting to think maybe this is where the term 'eye for an eye' came from (doing evil to evil), and it became over time about revenge and doing harm to 'Anyone' that did a person any slight....

Your Thoughts?
reply report
1. 60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  i don't see it that way.
  It doesn't matter how much Good you do, Evil won't increase nor decrease.
  Evil is one thing, and Good another.
  Let's say that while a war is going on, and a lot of people get killed, there's a Mission doing charity in another country.
  what the 'good' of the mission can alter the 'evil' of the war ?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The point is by doing ONLY good
  if people only do good, there would be no war.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  If people only do GOOD , Good and Evil disappears all together.
  If there's no action against one or the other, the word loses its meaning.
  If you only have beauty and no ugliness, you don't need the word beauty anymore.
  you couldn't say: How beautiful is miss X, if there's no ugly people
  you can't say Mr. Q is so good, if there's no evil anymore.
  
  It would never happen in a bipolar world.In a world of opposites.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
2. 82
  vox vocisposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nice thoughts! And definitely a better way of thinking compared to usual understanding of this word play!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You
  reply report
3. 63
  AdsenseStrategiesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Only works if you define "doing evil" in some unconventional way which, IMO, you cannot do (because if we ditch the agreed-upon meanings of words and phrases we cannot get anywhere... I can't arbitrarily to decide to start calling turnips "carrots").
  
  "Doing evil" is doing damage to something of worth (like a person, a great work of art, a planet, and so on). I am not doing evil when I destroy a big pile of garbage, for example, unless, as I say, you want to define "doing evil" in an idiosyncratic way (but, again, if I want to define "eating radishes" as "climbing Mt Everest" that's up to me... doesn't mean I am right)
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The definitions:
  
  from Wikipedia;
  Evil, in many cultures, is a broad term used to describe what are seen as subjectively harmful deeds that are labeled as such to steer moral support. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes acts that are subjectively beneficial to the observer. In some religions, evil is an active force, often personified as an entity such as Satan or Ahriman.
  
  from Dictionary dot com;
  
  e⋅vil /ˈivəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-vuhl] Show IPA
  Use evil in a Sentence
  See images of evil
  Search evil on the Web
  –adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
  2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
  3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
  4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
  5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
  
  –noun 6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
  7. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
  8. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
  9. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
  10. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
  11. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the evils of alcohol.
  12. a disease, as king's evil.
  
  –adverb 13. in an evil manner; badly; ill: It went evil with him.
  
  —Idiom14. the evil one, the devil; Satan.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  My interpretation is Evil is simply to damage... even if it is damage to something worthless...
  reply report
4. 58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  As psychologically poor as the bible is written, I don't think that much thought was put into "an eye for an eye". I think it was simply another law in attempts to find an equal punishment to criminals.
  
  We still use eye for an eye punishment in our justice system along with others. The death sentence is an eye for an eye.
  reply report
5. 60
  thevoiceposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  an eye for and eye never works its my street past its so true human writings of bible are not God Jesus the holy spirit in truth birth freedom. Read of holy stigmata is breath of human life with Jesus
  reply report
6. 68
  goldenpathposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. In one of my recent hubs on Israel I've illustrated how God actually uses the Adversary's evil designs to bring about a greater good. The Adversary dwells on the satisfaction of the "here and now" and does not have the eternal perspective capability that God has. This is actually good for the great plan for the human species. The bondage of the tribes of Israel was allowed to take place to justify and enable their eventual exodus. There are many other examples as well.
  
  As far as "eye for an eye". Much of the laws in Biblical text are based on the Law of Moses. What is not well known is that the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. After that the replacement for the Law of Moses was the new covenant established by the Savior. Many in the forums have repeatedly said that they are not saved by works. This is a misunderstanding of scripture. That passage refers to the works within the Law of Moses and is not a part of the new covenant. He was saying that we are not saved by the acts of the rituals under the Law of Moses. In other words He was teaching us that we can qualify for salvation upon our works under free agency unto our fellow man and not through blind works under the Law of Moses. Eye for an eye was correct but is under a law that has been fulfilled.
  
  In fact the purpose of the Law of Moses was TO BE fulfilled and not to endure beyond the Savior's personal ministry. He fulfilled that and thus the new law and covenant was instituted.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I believe that all things are meant to be 'fulfilled' with the exception of God...
  
  "For every new begining, is an old beginings end."
  reply report
0
lyricsingrayposted 14 years ago
Love your new pic and each eye,
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks (blushing)
  reply report
0
A Texanposted 14 years ago
You lost me at

"Being evil to evil is good, but it is also evil. Being brilliantly good saints at doing evil to evil is a greater evil to evil, but it also a greater good."

Please, never do that again.
reply report
1. 59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not often I agree with the Texan.
  
  Seriously - you want to justify your ridiculous beliefs. Do it in your head.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for playing...
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Not really wanting anyone's thoughts then?
  
  That is right - you have all the answers.
  
  Makes me wonder why you bother asking for people's thoughts. Oh yeah - the fight.
  
  Good for you. Jesus would be prowd.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ah - I see. I don't blame you. My thoughts make sense and you wouldn't want that to interfere with the fight, ill will and conflict you want to happen.
  
  I will leave you to your fight then. Jesus would be proud.
  
  Very, very well done. Excellent fight. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oh - my pleasure. Anyone that drives away people from the idea of a god is alright in my book. Especially when they think they are doing the opposite.
  
  Well done.
  
  Just remember - IF YOU CANNOT DISPROVE IT IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  you got the quote wrong again it is if you cannot disprove it... it Could be true...
  
  Kids, buy 'em books and buy 'em books...what do they do? Chew on the covers and use the pages for toilet paper...geez
  reply report
  59
  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Aha. I see. So - what are you arguing for if it onloy could be true.
  
  NMice f9ght though. I am sure kjeebus be dun proew a ya. Wee; dome
  
  It not true ifm yo caint dodpsiprve um;. Right?
  
  GB will yow all un.
  
  LOLOLOLOLOLOL
  
  I get that rpiur? or no?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is it just me or does it look like Mark is having a stroke?
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
@ A Texan
Lol...

Is that a way of asking me to clarify? Or are you just being funny?
reply report
1. 0
  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Don't worry about me, carry on.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 14 years ago
The only facts of this thread are that Good and Evil exists.
They're human conditions.
Now ,believing in Satan or God ,that's something unreal, that you can choose to believe in. No proof of them.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Then by your logic if you can't prove it, it isn't true?
  
  Can you prove God is unreal? How about Satan? Got proof?
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Got proof on the contrary ?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Is that a no? You don't have any proof.
  
  In my belief system, I believe that there are things that exist even though we cannot yet prove they exist. For me however the proof that God exists is written in my hub 'why Mikel believes in God'... If your interested, and again more proof is shown in my hub 'Feelings as Proof'
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  well, there are different belief systems. In mine I only believe in myself.
  Anyway Good and Evil are human conditions. nothing to do with Religion. Even if religion wouldn't exist anymore, Good and Evil will remain.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Well Stated.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm glad you agree
  You do, right ?
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Saying you stated your point well, doesn't mean that I necessarily agree, with your well stated statement.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  there's no remedy for you !
  I give up!
  reply report
74
Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago
Evil to me is based on intent.

Someone may be trying to do good in their heart and it ends up doing more damage than aid.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Doing good can also be termed:
  Hurting evil...or damaging evil...
  
  therefore doing good is doing evil(harming evil), but it is ONLY harmful to evil. Since harming evil (stopping evil) is a good thing...
  
  doing good is the harming of evil, or as I stated earlier, the doing of evil to evil.
  reply report
  74
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Hypothetical:
  
  I find termites in my house. I hire an exterminator to commit genocide on the termites with Weapons of Mass Destruction(poison)
  
  Who is evil me or the termites?
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Both
  reply report
  74
  Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  How could the termites be evil they are trying to provide for their family?
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But in the process they're harming you
  reply report
  58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The wood for drawing the termites!
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not trying to define what is evil and what isn't...
  I'm merely stating that doing evil to evil(whatever acts or entities that may be) is an act of evil, but it is also,at the same time an act of good, because it only hurts evil...
  Which I'm calling 'God's Paradox' ...
  reply report
61
moanalisaposted 14 years ago
Does chopping off fingers prevent theft? Is it good to do so? Is it right to put to death a sociopath to prevent further murders?

The "godsense" is within oneself, to what point can you justify these actions and feel good and right for your actions?
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  But in my mind 'chopping of fingers' is evil...it is not an example of doing only good ...
  
  the sociopath I would deem as an evil being, therefore doing the evil (execution) would be doing evil to evil, which is a good thing.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Doing evil to evil isn't a good thing. Finding out what cause them to do what they did and how to fix it? is the answer to explore. Not killing them.
  
  Taking a life isn't warranted, regardless. It's morally wrong, as is what they did to deserve you taking their life.
  
  No Human has the right to take another's life. It's morally wrong and NOT good in anyway. Attacking the problem that cause them to kill someone is better addressed, so as to prevent it from happening again.
  
  Killing them isn't an answer to their action.
  reply report
  58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I highly agree. I also think it teaches children that killing is an alright punishment when they see their government legally kill. When a person is killed, nothing is learned from them. If they are alive, things could be learned to prevent similar cases in the future. Agreed.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  It tells you that a moral standard would need to be established, better than the morality of society presently. Correct?
  reply report
  58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes! But one that can only be believed by faith. I think logic is that government makes far too many profits off of wars and killing.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now, you're not making sense. A person can be taught a moral standard. Morality isn't natural.
  
  Morality is taught by parents to children.
  
  Regardless of what government wants, it can be set, simply by teaching it to others.
  reply report
  58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Will governments ever sacrifice power and money for morals? This is what I mean. I don't think it is logical to believe.
  
  Not all children have parents to teach them morals and the ones that do sometimes have parents that teach them negative morals. I don't think there is a book of morals anywhere that is witten as absolute. Even if they were, how many would believe and act on them as absolute?
  
  It is hard to teach to others when there is much confusion surrounding it. Sometimes killing is neccessary to prevent future killing at the same time saying the death penalty is wrong.
  reply report
  61
  moanalisaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So if someone is intent on taking the life of my daughter, I am supposed to chat with them, psychoanalize their intentions and try to talk it out of them before I even try to defend my daughter? Life is harsh and sometimes it comes to having to choose between the lesser of evils.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  again your discussing 'What is evil?' and 'which is the worse evil'
  
  that isn't what the forum is about...
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Now, you're taking things to an extreme. If your own life is in jeopardy, it is instinctive to defend oneself. Killing itself, is morally wrong in a civilized society. But, instinctive life threatening defense is exactly that. It's not seen as a direct kill. You have to kill in that instance, survival accounts more than the kill.
  
  There is no lessor of evils. Evil is evil and it can be seen by it's actions.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  WHATEVER
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nice comeback. You wit astounds me.
  reply report
  61
  moanalisaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I see, there are exceptions when it becomes self-serving?
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Oneself survival? Self-serving? No. Instinctive. There is a difference.
  reply report
61
moanalisaposted 14 years ago
The fact you even present arguments within arguments, Mikel, you are doing precisely that. Kudos for you for stealthing your own thread and yet by good intentions, derail your efforts.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I dont understand what your saying here.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  i don't either.
  Sounds very academic!
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 14 years ago
god's paradox is, how an all knowing omnipotent God can come up with such a foul creation.
reply report
1. 58
  marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this
  This is where they say "free will".
  
  Bible definition of free will: God wants you to be free, but wants you to worship him.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that goes back to the necessity of having opposites, which you used to argue your point earlier...
  
  For Good to exist, Evil must also exist...
  
  as written in my hubs 'Being Unique, the thing that makes us ALL the same.' and 'The Balance of Good and Evil' and 'Knowing Mikel G Roberts...A Piece in God's Puzzle' and 'My Brain... my mental navigator' and so on and so on...
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  The entire human race could be good. It would only mean that EVIL exists somewhere else.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  No that is the point, evil would exist right here...
  
  goodness is the doing of evil to evil. That is in itself an evil act(the doing of good) to evil.
  
  that is 'God's Paradox'
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Goodness is NOT the doing evil to evil. As I stated.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for playing.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  And, now you're telling me I'm wrong and you're right, by saying "Thanks for playing".
  
  Nice try to backstop what I have said. And, if you disagree, with what I said, then your actions throughout your entire life, will be selfish and for yourself only.
  
  So, either way. You have a been told.
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  that's called IDEALISM
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  A very wrong creation !You just have to look around.
  
  And about knowing Mikel G. Roberts....
  thinking about it !
  reply report
66
awareposted 14 years ago
the end of the eye for a eye thing is' leaves everyone blind'
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
2. 60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  So you're aware !!!
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 14 years ago
reply report
61
Alessia Amnesiaposted 14 years ago
Okay... ignoring all of the previous comments trying to justify the original post, I'm not comprehending the original post.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  ok what part is the most confusing?...
  
  You know what a paradox is right?
  reply report
  61
  Alessia Amnesiaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I know what a paradox is. The entire thing is confusing. You don't offer any reasons why you think what you think, thus making it very hard to comprehend what you are actually trying to say.
  
  Give me some examples and maybe I'll understand better what you're trying to say.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

turn the lights out when your done...
reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
@ Alessia
Ok proof is the logic of the paradox...which by the nature of a paradox is confusing and self refuting...

All the hubs I listed in earlier text(on this thread) are where the proof and the rationalizing of the OP took place and reading those might help.
There is no one or two word explanation though, it is a complex paradox and difficult to understand at best.
reply report
1. 61
  Alessia Amnesiaposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  I guess the topic itself doesn't interest me enough to read the hubs you listed. Perhaps I am just too simple-minded.
  reply report
60
tantrumposted 14 years ago
I think now it's time to go and see who Mikel G. Roberts is.

I'm going to your hubs, mate !
Beware !
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  (grinning) I'm shaking with fear...
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  You should ! I just comment in 2 of them
  reply report
61
moanalisaposted 14 years ago
Good luck to you with your book.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong thread I think...
  reply report
  60
  tantrumposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago
reply report
63
marcel285posted 14 years ago
For every terrific, there is a terrible, in every terrible there is a terrific. There has to be balance, there is balance in absolutely everything. That is the human race, there can be no more evil than good, or no more good than evil, else we would evolve to something other than human. Which is possible, but highly unlikely.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  Nicely Stated, you have read my hub 'Humanity the Middle Ground' I take it...
  reply report
63
marcel285posted 14 years ago
No i hadn't read it, but i have now. Sounds like we agree.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

An Eye for an Eye

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

An Eye for an Eye

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies