Things you shouldnt do to your worse enemies

[AtheistConservative]

Personally I feel it would depend on how bad the particular enemy is and what the outcome of the action would be, but really anything could be justified. For example, going after someone's family simply because they grew up on the opposite border would not be justified, but if it would save the world for nuclear war, it would be.

 

[KoalaKid]

Just don't accumulate enemies to start with. That way you can kill them before even you know that your enemies.

 

[Mr. Gency]

instead of killing them, show them Two girls one cup

You... you monster!

EDIT: Oh wait, I forgot, the thread is called "Things you shouldn't do to your worse enemies"

 

[Robot n.o 9124791234]

there is nothing I wouldn't do to my worst enemy, there is a reason he/she is my worst enemy if he/she is not going to pull any pucnhes why should I as far as I'm concerned if you start something your not prepared to finish to the very end than don't start why have a worst enemy if you can't put the final nail in the coffin so to speak. So yeah nothing is off limits for me.

This.

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

Get anybody else involved. As soon as you get somebody else involved (their loved ones for example) you become the bad guy. Whatever they did wrong to upset you means nothing after you bring in people they care about as some kind of leverage or tool against them.

Pretty much this, I dont think you should do this to your enemy even they did it to you because then you sink to their level. Which brings me to what I think is the worst thing: sacrificing who you are and sinking to a lower person than who you really are in order to defeat your enemy; that is what I think is the worst thing (other than bringing in people not involved).

 

[Hatter]

Raping their loved one in front of them, I wouldn't do that to even my worst enemy. Hell, even if it's not in front of them.

This, and killing them in front of their children and vice versa.

 

[Legendairy314]

Various forms of torture. There's this terrible one that involves a glass rod and a urethra but that isn't exactly kid friendly. I'll just leave it at cheese graters. Let those sink in.

 

[Lukeje]

...give them mercy. I mean, you don't want them coming after you again do you?

 

[Limie]

Sleeping with them is probably a bad idea. Who knows what crafty mischief they could do during your post sex laziness. Or even mid coitus!

If this never happened we wouldn't have the Jeremy Kyle show.

 

[Anezay]

I would never arm them.

 

[tehlordofmyownworld]

Drag anyone else into the fight/arguement/Nuclear war/whatever, unless they are directly linked to why this person became my worst enemy, as in they are the one who caused it.

 

[FalloutJack]

I don't think I should take a sickle, scythe, or shuang gou to my enemy's testicles and slowly cut up to his lower lip.

 

[Arfonious]

Kill him

I wouldn't kill him, that would just prove me to be as bad as him

 

[Tjacu]

Start a monolog with my enemy, or leave him alone in the room after that.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Kill him

I wouldn't kill him, that would just prove me to be as bad as him

No, that would prove that you don't want to die

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Personally, I think these kinds of self restrictions should correspond with whether or not you respect said enemy or have your own set of moral/ethical codes of conduct.

From a practicality standpoint, however, I tend to agree with the words of Machiavelli. Here's a particularly relevant quote of his:

Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.

If you're going to destroy your rivals, you shouldn't do a half-assed job. Once started, you must destroy everything they own and care about. Don't give them the opportunity to seek revenge.

Edit:

on the same line of thinking, opening fire on a church or other similar building. im not religious but it just seems wrong too. also it wont help you win any hearts, minds or support opening fire on churches or funerals.

During World War II, German-held towns and villages often had snipers and artillery forward observers posted in the steeples of churches. This kind of thing happened so frequently that, almost as a rule, allied forces would open fire at them when laying siege to Nazi occupied areas. Following your line of reasoning, I'd hate to be the CO in charge writing a heartfelt letter to Little Jimmy's parents about how the top half of their son's head was blown off by an anti-tank rifle because "it was against my moral code to fire at a church full of Nazi snipers".

((Godwin's Law strikes again!))