When is it alright to hate?

scott3x said:
I feel like I'm chasing you with your own words, and you just keep on changing them :p. Fine, she was "taught that they were morally inferior' :p.

That does not mean she was "damaged." My third grade teacher said your intestines would wrap around the earth. It wasn't damaging.

I think being racist is damaging, both to the person who's racist as well as to those who they're racist towards. I think that believing that intestines would wrap around the earth is wrong, but not so damaging :p.


takandjive said:
scott3x said:
I looked up the term "prig"; here's an excerpt:
"He or she sees little need to consider the feelings or intentions of others..."

Something that's definitely not true in my case.

You're only interested in your own agenda. I personally find you to be the equivalent of a big moist needy insincere puppy with an agenda, and I doubt I am alone.

Well atleast I'm a puppy now ;)

I believe we all do what we do in order to maximize our happiness and minimize our pain. So if that's what you mean, fine, but I think it applies to you and everyone else as well. However, this is where things like considering the feelings of others becomes paramount; a sociopath may care little if at all concerning what other people feel. I'm the reverse; I care a great deal. This doesn't mean, however, that I'll allow my beliefs to be walked on, but it does mean that I'm fairly careful when it comes to my language.
 
I think being racist is damaging, both to the person who's racist as well as to those who they're racist towards. I think that believing that intestines would wrap around the earth is wrong, but not so damaging :p.

I think that unless expressed, just having a stupid belief is harmless, but one should keep it to oneself.

Well atleast I'm a puppy now ;)

I don't think being a big moist needy puppy is an appealing thing.

I believe we all do what we do in order to maximize our happiness and minimize our pain. So if that's what you mean, fine, but I think it applies to you and everyone else as well. However, this is where things like considering the feelings of others becomes paramount; a sociopath may care little if at all concerning what other people feel. I'm the reverse; I care a great deal. This doesn't mean, however, that I'll allow my beliefs to be walked on, but it does mean that I'm fairly careful when it comes to my language.

I care, but I don't blow sunshine up people's asses and think it'll make any crap spewing out of my mouth palatable. Actually do something useful for the planet other than making 9/11 threads and we'll talk.
 
Hate is right just and proper when one decides that something is right just and proper. For instance, hating a psychopath or criminal for the worst acts ever committed is worthy of hate. Especially if the acts are being denied and excused as okay due to lies deciet and mistrust.
 
Typically however the "mistrust" is in point of fact due to a more ulterior motive and thus hate is proper and justified as a common consentual agreement made up on whatever thought or justification is being hated.
 
Which therein allows hate to exist in all situations. Hate is the word and you use it proudly, with pride? No not with pride but with what is.
 
scott3x said:
I think being racist is damaging, both to the person who's racist as well as to those who they're racist towards. I think that believing that intestines would wrap around the earth is wrong, but not so damaging :p.

I think that unless expressed, just having a stupid belief is harmless, but one should keep it to oneself.

Something like racism is something that no one should have, I think. I think it's rather hard not to express it, don't you?


takandjive said:
scott3x said:
Well atleast I'm a puppy now ;)

I don't think being a big moist needy puppy is an appealing thing.

I'll take it over 'prig' :p.


takandjive said:
scott3x said:
I believe we all do what we do in order to maximize our happiness and minimize our pain. So if that's what you mean, fine, but I think it applies to you and everyone else as well. However, this is where things like considering the feelings of others becomes paramount; a sociopath may care little if at all concerning what other people feel. I'm the reverse; I care a great deal. This doesn't mean, however, that I'll allow my beliefs to be walked on, but it does mean that I'm fairly careful when it comes to my language.

I care, but I don't blow sunshine up people's asses and think it'll make any crap spewing out of my mouth palatable.

I don't think I want to explore that analogy :p.


takandjive said:
Actually do something useful for the planet other than making 9/11 threads and we'll talk.

We're already talking, although you can, ofcourse, cease to do so at any time. Clearly I talk of other things besides 9/11 or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Aside from that, I firmly believe that discussing what happened on 9/11 is quite useful for humanity in general, but you are free to hold your own beliefs on the matter.
 
Hate is right just and proper when one decides that something is right just and proper. For instance, hating a psychopath or criminal for the worst acts ever committed is worthy of hate. Especially if the acts are being denied and excused as okay due to lies deceit and mistrust.

I don't think hate is ever proper per se, but it's definitely human and I'm not immune to it.
 
Then hate is not "bad". Hate is hate; it depends on your reason and justification.
 
I have no problem with hate. Its an honest human emotion. People who say they don't hate are LIARS!!!!
 
Ask yourself this: is it ok to hate people that hate people?

Well, it's human. I'm not immune to hate even if I think it demonstrates a flaw in my character; but then, I personally know of no one who is immune to it. That doesn't mean that it's good though.
 
It seems to me that people are defining 'hate' as 'dislike'. Hate is much much stronger though. I think it's very rare.
 
Something like racism is something that no one should have, I think. I think it's rather hard not to express it, don't you?

I'm not so willing to paint with a broad brush. Entirely depends on the person.

We're already talking, although you can, ofcourse, cease to do so at any time. Clearly I talk of other things besides 9/11 or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Aside from that, I firmly believe that discussing what happened on 9/11 is quite useful for humanity in general, but you are free to hold your own beliefs on the matter.

Knock off the bullshit. Please. And get a damn life. My legs hurt from riding horses and I'm in no mood for it.

My point is, quit blathering on about your few obsessions and agendas and try being diversified in your discussions.
 
It seems to me that people are defining 'hate' as 'dislike'. Hate is much much stronger though. I think it's very rare.

Hate's pretty intense. I define hate as this: If you really hate a person, you're perfectly willing to clash cymbals periodically over their head while they try to diffuse a bomb that's going to go off in their guts and make them die a painful death. Have I hated someone that bad? Ooooh yes. :p
 
I think defining where dislike ends and hate begins is rather difficult...

Defining any emotion is difficult, given the wide range of subjectiveness. However, we do all conventionally agree hate is stronger than dislike. We generally know when we dislike someone strongly and hate them. Hate would fall into malicious thoughts, actions or speech.
 
I am tolerant of everything that is not inconsistent with my own opinions.

In this I am like everyone else.
 
scott3x said:
Norsefire said:
Ask yourself this: is it ok to hate people that hate people?

Well, it's human. I'm not immune to hate even if I think it demonstrates a flaw in my character; but then, I personally know of no one who is immune to it. That doesn't mean that it's good though.

I am not saying it is. I'm saying it's neither good nor bad; just like anger.

Perhaps hate is simply simmering anger. Anyway, I don't think either are optimal; this doesn't mean, however that getting angry isn't helpful sometimes. The issue is more that if we were more advanced, we'd be able to accomplish things without anger or hate; however, we haven't gotten to this stage yet, and so at times it's a good thing I guess, just as it's better to have fire than nothing; but better still is generally an oven ;-). The old saying, 'revenge is a dish best served cold' is along the path that I consider good.

In one of my favourite movies, Peter Brook's The Mahabharata, a man who could choose the day of his death said this to a warrior who wanted to fight:
"Can you fight without anger, without pride?"

As far as I'm concerned, this is the ideal. Not sure if it's ever been acomplished though. I think it's best accompanied with another conversation in the same film series:
Arjuna: Can it be prevented?
Krishna: Arjuna, I can tell you with absolute conviction you won't have a choice between peace and war.
Arjuna: Then what well be my choice?
Krishna: Between war, and another war.
Arjuna: The other war, where will it take place? In a battle field, or in my heart?
Krishna: I don't see a real difference.​
 
Back
Top