On Worthy Opponents

By definition anyone you lose to is a worthy adversary. Power is power, you ponces.

Let's try to imagine the most contrary situation. You lose to an objectively weak adversary. That means you were unworthy. In other words, you lost to yourself. Are you a worthy adversary for yourself? Have to be, by definition. That's the floor. You either lose to someone exactly as powerful as you are, or more powerful. If your true opponent is weaker, you didn't lose. The logic simply doesn't work out. 

There is great glory is starting unnecessary fights, with some caveats. Why? The opposite is avoiding unnecessary fights. What do we call that, children? We call it unwillingness to be tested. We call it cowardice. You're avoiding tests because you think you'll lose, you loser.

You shouldn't need me to tell you what the caveats are. Figure it out yourself. 

Being controlled by the fear of losing is worse than losing. Is fear of losing your worthy adversary? A mere feeling? Pathetic. I guess if that really is your worthy adversary, avoiding fights is prudent because you really will get hopelessly wrecked.

The brave man dies once. The coward never lived at all. The coward refuses to flourish, making a mockery of their own creation. For the coward, existing at all is too reckless; some tests are unavoidable.

The Romans were absolute assholes and the conquest of Athens was a tragedy. However, the Athenians deserved it for being weak. Horribly, disgustingly weak. I, too, would send the Romans as punishment for their deviance, were that my option. They thought they could get away turning their faces from the Heavens; now average Greek IQ is 92. It is not a coincidence there has never since been a Socrates or Aristotle, no Diogenes nor Hero, no Xeno, honoured be their names and deeds. Gnon always gets paid.