What is a strong or weak man? Who defined what it is to be a strong or weak man? Why are men the only indicator of a good or bad times? Do the experiences and perspectives of people who are not strong men provide no insight in to what are considered good or bad times?
I would like to know the goal of posting a broad statement such as this. It just seems like a statement to create more personal and “weaker” enemies. Having more enemies sounds exhausting. Or maybe I’m reading into it wrong.
You really can’t decipher the meaning? It implies strength is being able to live and survive in hard times, and those who do are in a greater position to improve things for the future than those who have grown and lived in more stable times. Those who’ve only known stability lack the understanding to cope with some of the changes as we are now experiencing. It further claims those who’ve lived in stability put others at risk.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.
If I’m understanding you, this is about leadership? Is leadership what separates strong men from weak men? Is it solely men in leadership positions that define strong/weak men? Are men in leading role the only source of indicating good times/bad times?
It seem like anyone who is not a man and not strong has very little input if this statement believed to be true.
Hello, random insert here. It feels like you’re here in bad faith, but if you aren’t, I’d like to provide clarity.
First of men/man is used here in a synonymous way for “mankind” so no sexist B.S. inserts please.
Hard times breed strong men means those who grow up destitute, in harsh conditions (homeless, extreme poverty, never enough food, bad security) are those who survive those times and are usually people who are resourceful and have better understanding of what it takes to have the necessities.
Strong men make good times means those who survived the aforementioned issues growing up are the ones who drive society now as adults. Those survivors are typically more empathetic and sympathetic to others who may be in that same position and strive to create a society for the next generation so that they do not have to suffer the same extreme circumstances.
Good times breed weak men means that the next generation lives without nearly as much struggle, resources are generally more plentiful, they are focused more on self enrichment and personal fulfillment. This is what the “strong generation” wanted, but typically the choices made by the “weak men” are lead entirely by personal enrichment and gain. Combined with the lack of innate sympathy and empathy for those who are in poor conditions due to not having the experience themselves they make choices that are short term and not always for the benefit of everyone.
Weak men breed hard times means the choices towards self fulfilment and personal enrichment has gone too far and neglected others to the point that as the following generation comes into society the resources are scarce. They must be hard fought for and competed for in a way the weak men never did. The cycle then repeats and you have the generation growing up competing for minimal resources in harsher conditions leaving them desiring to change this for themselves and prevent if from happening to others.
What is a strong or weak man? Who defined what it is to be a strong or weak man? Why are men the only indicator of a good or bad times? Do the experiences and perspectives of people who are not strong men provide no insight in to what are considered good or bad times?
I would like to know the goal of posting a broad statement such as this. It just seems like a statement to create more personal and “weaker” enemies. Having more enemies sounds exhausting. Or maybe I’m reading into it wrong.
You really can’t decipher the meaning? It implies strength is being able to live and survive in hard times, and those who do are in a greater position to improve things for the future than those who have grown and lived in more stable times. Those who’ve only known stability lack the understanding to cope with some of the changes as we are now experiencing. It further claims those who’ve lived in stability put others at risk.
If I’m understanding you, this is about leadership? Is leadership what separates strong men from weak men? Is it solely men in leadership positions that define strong/weak men? Are men in leading role the only source of indicating good times/bad times?
It seem like anyone who is not a man and not strong has very little input if this statement believed to be true.
Hello, random insert here. It feels like you’re here in bad faith, but if you aren’t, I’d like to provide clarity.
First of men/man is used here in a synonymous way for “mankind” so no sexist B.S. inserts please.
Hard times breed strong men means those who grow up destitute, in harsh conditions (homeless, extreme poverty, never enough food, bad security) are those who survive those times and are usually people who are resourceful and have better understanding of what it takes to have the necessities.
Strong men make good times means those who survived the aforementioned issues growing up are the ones who drive society now as adults. Those survivors are typically more empathetic and sympathetic to others who may be in that same position and strive to create a society for the next generation so that they do not have to suffer the same extreme circumstances.
Good times breed weak men means that the next generation lives without nearly as much struggle, resources are generally more plentiful, they are focused more on self enrichment and personal fulfillment. This is what the “strong generation” wanted, but typically the choices made by the “weak men” are lead entirely by personal enrichment and gain. Combined with the lack of innate sympathy and empathy for those who are in poor conditions due to not having the experience themselves they make choices that are short term and not always for the benefit of everyone.
Weak men breed hard times means the choices towards self fulfilment and personal enrichment has gone too far and neglected others to the point that as the following generation comes into society the resources are scarce. They must be hard fought for and competed for in a way the weak men never did. The cycle then repeats and you have the generation growing up competing for minimal resources in harsher conditions leaving them desiring to change this for themselves and prevent if from happening to others.
That is the theory/meaning behind the quote