First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply As a Leader Is It Better to Be Feared or Respected ?
1274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
Half and half but if i had to have 1 it needs to be feared to show you have no weakness
2054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 3/22/13 , edited 3/22/13
A Ruler may lead through fear, but never a leader.

A leader sets an example by living his life according to his own ideals, whilst inspiring others to follow their own.

The power to inspire is at the heart of what makes a leader truly great.
1274 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
Is that a quote from wiki answers or something
9634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Georgia - GA
Offline
Posted 3/22/13
Fear without a certain amount of respect is impossible.
Now how you define respect can vary respect in its pure essence is the reverence of something or someone so when you fear someone you are also respecting them so in the end respect is better for if you are respected then you are most likely to also be feared no to mention the other benefits that respect brings.
4465 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / ICQ: 114629959
Offline
Posted 3/23/13

trinkit wrote:


Sesshoumaru-sama wrote:




Kennedy was loved by the people, ... but he was against the war in vietnam... but war means money... never stand in the way of the money.


I got this from a website about Kennedy & Vietnam:

"John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a fervent believer in containing communism. In his first speech on becoming president, Kennedy made it clear that he would continue the policy of the former President, Dwight Eisenhower, and support the government of Diem in South Vietnam. Kennedy also made it plain that he supported the ‘Domino Theory’ and he was convinced that if South Vietnam fell to communism, then other states in the region would as a consequence. This Kennedy was not prepared to contemplate."

That sounds like he was for the war.


That is not the whole story. Of cause he honestly believed that letting the vietcong do what they want the communism would spread to all of asia. That is why he supported the militaty operations. In late 1962 and early 1963 he send more and more advisors to vietnam, because Kennedy got to know that all US actions only made the vietcong stronger. He started to question the CIA's methods and tried to stop the vicious circle. He realised that the people of vietnam (as whole) did not see the US as liberator. Behind the scene he pulled the strings to stop the involvement in vietnam at end of the year 1963 -> you know that happend afterwards.

A crazy lone attacker outsmarted the whole CIA/FBI/SS/NSA and killed the president of the United States.
19473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / F
Offline
Posted 3/24/13

Sesshoumaru-sama wrote:


I’m prepared to accept the likelihood that the Vietnam War wouldn’t have been such an Americanized war had it not been for the death of JFK. I’ve discovered that on several occasions he made offers to the USSR to combine lunar space programs in order to save money from duplication of effort. This is the thinking of a pragmatic man. I’m convinced he would have viewed the war as an exercise in futility, a waste of lives and money. It’s sad that 50 years later not much has changed, partisanship still overrules pragmatism in our government.
Posted 4/20/13
Feared by your enemies, respected by your own
22987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 4/20/13 , edited 4/20/13
Respected in almost all aspects is obviously better, unless you're planning on world domination or starting your own gang.

Most uncivilised nations, especially going back a couple of hundred years had to rely on fear over respect as people were always insistent on taking their place and force needed to be taken out of the equation.

As for todays standards, look at the rulers who rule through fear, I'd hardly call that productive.
259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Floating Cloud
Offline
Posted 4/20/13
I think it's better to be respected.
With respect towards yourself & other will make a overall healthy environment for everyone
with fear there will be hate and with hate people will rebel till they get what they want
no matter what.
37669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / Jabberwock Island
Offline
Posted 4/20/13
Hard to decide. Fear has proven to be more dominant unfortunately. Look at Stalin and Mussolini? Nobody fucked with those two totalitarian leaders and look at people who were respected and what that got them. JFK anybody?
I personally want to say Respected but Fear has shown to be more effective over all.
Posted 4/20/13
To be secretive
2262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / australia
Offline
Posted 4/20/13
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 4/20/13

DirEnGay wrote:

Respected in almost all aspects is obviously better, unless you're planning on world domination or starting your own gang.

Most uncivilised nations, especially going back a couple of hundred years had to rely on fear over respect as people were always insistent on taking their place and force needed to be taken out of the equation.

As for todays standards, look at the rulers who rule through fear, I'd hardly call that productive.


I don't know...Bush Junior got two terms.
22987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 4/20/13

spacebat wrote:


DirEnGay wrote:

Respected in almost all aspects is obviously better, unless you're planning on world domination or starting your own gang.

Most uncivilised nations, especially going back a couple of hundred years had to rely on fear over respect as people were always insistent on taking their place and force needed to be taken out of the equation.

As for todays standards, look at the rulers who rule through fear, I'd hardly call that productive.


I don't know...Bush Junior got two terms.


Who genuinely feared him though? It's not like he was forcing soldiers to fight each other to the death for training, or really doing much else that was controversial. He was just an idiot, and idiots respected him, that's why he got two terms.
Posted 4/20/13 , edited 4/20/13
Rulers who use fear and intimidation are cowards.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.