A Quote by Margaret J. Wheatley

Aggression only moves in one direction - it creates more aggression. — © Margaret J. Wheatley
Aggression only moves in one direction - it creates more aggression.
Aggression only breeds more aggression. It only creates more fear and anger.
As for testosterone, it's gotten a bum rap. Yes, it has tons to do with aggression but it doesn't cause aggression as much as sensitizes you to the environmental triggers of aggression.
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.
The problem isn't testosterone and aggression; it's how often we reward aggression. And we do: We give medals to masters of the "right" kinds of aggression. We preferentially mate with them. We select them as our leaders.
Aggression, it's the next thing to war, except you don't get killed. Aggression is what you have every day with your wife. Aggression is what you have every day at the office. Box is a legalized form of aggression, where the ending is well-defined, the combat is well-delivered, and you got 10 rounds of two equally-sized fighters fighting aggressively to hurt each other.
Historically, aggression unanswered has led to more aggression.
By reacting to aggression with aggression we lose the opportunity to spiritually benefit from the experience.
I feel playful aggression is important for children because they have to deal with all kinds of anger and aggression in their lives.
Because the state necessarily commits aggression, the consistent libertarian, in opposing aggression, is also an anarchist.
I don't think aggression works like thirst or sleep. I think aggression is more elicited by particular situations. I think it can be mitigated.
All this going around is not aggression. If you want to see aggression on cricket field, look into Rahul Dravid’s eyes
Controlled aggression, to me, is one of the most important traits to have. To have that social intelligence to know when to exert aggression in the military environment, and when to stay calm, cool, and collected.
It seems to me the worst possible concept, militarily, that we would simply stay there, resisting aggression, so-called...it seems to me that the way to "resist aggression" is to destroy the potentialities of the aggressor to continually hit you...When you say, merely, "we are going to continue to fight aggression," that is not what the enemy is fighting for. The enemy is fighting for a very definite purpose-to destroy our forces.
We live with a distinct double standard about male and female aggression. Women's aggression isn't considered real. It isn't dangerous; it's only cute. Or it's always self-defense or otherwise inspired by a man. In the rare case where a woman is seen as genuinely responsible, she is branded a monster - an 'unnatural' woman.
Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.
This country of ours has committed the most serious act of aggression in its history by engaging in a war of aggression without a declaration of war by Congress.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!