on one of them, it was judging by the bio episode, the eventual explosion of many things. the proverbial straw, i guess. basing it on what little i caught when awake in chem last year, things happened, and more things happened, and they kept happening. and the things were not good, and perhaps downright hurtful. whether or not they were intended/percieved as so, we're playing with other people's perceptions now, so intent is kind of a moot point.
on another hand (more than just two here) it's a matter of scale. the geneva convention, the part about weapon size when retaliating, would be the most applicable example here. do you drop an atom bomb on someone who's been lobbing grenades? nooooo. and the war metaphors go on to...
yet another hand! people have no trouble killing people whose faces they don't see. also, killing when it is "morally right" is perfectly acceptable. even when those morals are not followed by demographic x or minority z. basically, people make it easier for them to get away with they want while still imposing restrictions on others. admitting to hypocrisy is one thing, but people can still throw it back at you when the pressure is on. as a human being and thus someone who does this, i can neither condone nor condemn it and conclude that it is unfortunate and unavoidable and the cause of way too much shit like this.
the next hand is most likely holding a sword, since there are two sides to this and both can hurt people. one said says the "golden rule" they taught you in kndergarten, about treating others the way you'd be treated. so being men begets being mean, and so forth. this is not infallible, since the person you were being mean to could then be mean back by an extension of the same principle. the other side has to do with "if people did that to you, then you's know what it feels like and be more/less inclined to do it." this is also fraught with disaster, since every time this is ever said, the subject goes "but people are, and that's why i am this way," or something equally potentially valid and certainly infuriating to the "wronged" party bringing it up.
next hand: is aggression acceptable only when released slowly and on the sly, or in a big violent burst? condoning either approach makes it okay to hurt people a specific way, which is ridiculous because either way it's a deliberate injury. picture this- a man with a baseball bat and a box of rat poison comes up to you and says "would you rather die slowly or quickly?" well, what kind of an answer would you give to that? it's clear that either way he intends to kill you, so it's not much of a choice and might i add it's not really that good either way. also, would it be okay if the man were a businessman or a family friend as opposed to a stranger or someone who's part of a group you don't like?
the last hand, which is by now itching to strangle someone. why is it that everyone is getting sucked in and forced by hook or by crook to pick a side? not that this hand is going to have much on it, since lighting matches near kerosene is never a bright idea.
the head to which these hands are attached, however remotely, would like to add that, true to that old song, nobody's right if everybody's wrong. also it would like to add that it has marshmallows to toast, and is therefore insensible.