Sabre Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Basic premise. What is worse, someone who is angry or someone who is apathetic? The argument goes that a person who is angry and bitter and mean at least cares enough to be angry about something, where as apathetic people are worse because they have no feeling of empathy or the plight of others. They see people as things instead of people ect. Personally, I'm to apathetic to care about answering that question, but what do you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballisticwaffles Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Anger. Apathy hasnt killed anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konchaski Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 This is a hard question: Anger is not necessarily violent, but can become a force to motivate people. However, it can go out of control. Meanwhile, Apathy just is that: lack of interest, lack of enthusiasm, and lack of concern which can lead to bad situations if it is that consuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulvokunvrii Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I say Anger is worse becasue too much anger, and some people could go insane....murderous rampages...blah blah blah. Apathy isnt tooo bad...but it iant good either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorAllosaurus Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Tough question, extremely apathetic people are really a pain in the ass to deal with, while an angry person can be unpredictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 If our ancestors descended too deeply into apathy, we likely wouldn't be where we are today; certainly, if the British colonists hadn't been able to get all riled and pissed at England, we wouldn't have America as it is today. On the other hand, if America or China or North Korea or some other crazy fucker gets pissed enough to start a global nuclear war or some shit like that, it'll be pretty bad. The thing is, though, anger has direct destructive influence, whereas apathy is much more indirect in its destruction. I can see points for both sides of the argument, and although I personally see more points against anger than apathy, I still vote that apathy is worse. I'm not entirely sure why. It might be that I'm pretty good at controlling my anger, so I personally see less problems come from it, while my apathy hurts my grades in school and such and causes me more problems. Still, anger is rarely a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asper Sarnoff Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Anger. Apathy hasnt killed anyone. Neither have it done humanity any good. Some progress and great things have been achieved trugh anger, in addition to all the bad stuff. Besides, I firmly believe apathy can be equally as destructive in the long run. I vote for apathy as the worst option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now