Jump to content

Hate and hating the hater.


tar

Recommended Posts

 

Now I see no reason for any citizen to have a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15, as it only has one main purpose, and that is to kill lots of people quickly, and there are no situations where that would be useful except for revolution and protection against invasion, and in both cases, our police, national guard and armed forces have those eventualities covered, but there are such weapons out there and some people that seek to equalize their own power to the power of the criminal, have a right to do so.

 

So do you think the average citizen needs to have an AR-15 or not? If so, should we have AR-15s to fight criminals who have these weapons, or are we to leave it to police, etc., as you claim. Where do we draw the line....should citizens have machine guns, perhaps a rocket-propelled grenade gun?

Indeed, a growing problem seems to be that even police have more powerful military-type weapons that they use in dealing with the public (e.g., at riots) which only further escalates violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

Just lost a post. So here is the cliff notes version.

 

I do not think semi-automatic weapons are a good idea but do not want to take them away from citizens who already have them.

 

We already have outlawed automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Where would we draw the line, in terms of the power of a weapon. Ban everything more powerful than a pellet gun? And then when somebody gets a eye shot with a pellet gun, ban them too?

 

And common sense would tell us not to take people's rights away, to fly or buy a weapon based on suspicion. The guy that slaughtered in Orlando, was a Native born American and a security guard and had no felony convictions. On what basis would we be right to deny him weapons. That he got called to the principle's office in grade school?

 

After 9/11 I sat in my high school auditorium near a woman in a Hijab, or turban or Abaya or whatever headdress is was, that made me question whether she could be a danger to me. I realized she was probably an American, and I had no way to know what was in her heart, but my duty as fellow American was to assume she was on my side.

 

We need to balance our rights to safety and security with the rights of the rest of Americans to be free and equal citizens that have our backs, and whose backs we have. It is better to assume we all have good judgement and good hearts, and are law abiding, caring citizens than assume everybody else is a hateful, evil, idiot who is against us.

 

Regards, TAR

by my calculations you have well over a 90 percent chance of being right when you assume the guy or girl next to you is a good person

not directly related to hate, but a human consideration, is to have control over ones life, ones environment and ones future

 

When we give our neighbor power over us, that is a good thing, because they will protect us, and support us, if they are on our side.

 

There is a danger however in taking power away from our neighbor. Then they are weaker in their ability to protect and support us, AND they have lost some control over their own lives, which is a source of anxiety, frustration, anger and in most cases will result in a reaction that will not be good.

 

Look at the effect of taking power away from Saddam's guard. It created ISIS. Or look at the result of the firing of a breadwinner unfairly...he sometimes, responds to his loss of control with suicide or goes postal.

 

Hating the hater is not going to end hate. Empowering your neighbor however, strengthens both your neighbor, and the team.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And common sense would tell us not to take people's rights away, to fly or buy a weapon based on suspicion.

Can't say that I agree with this because, often, suspicion is enough. For example, would you let a suspected child molester babysit your child or grandchild? Where gun sales to people on the No-Fly list in America is an issue, if not off topic, I think to error on the side of caution is reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hating the hater is not going to end hate. Empowering your neighbor however, strengthens both your neighbor, and the team.

 

 

tar, when are you going to learn?

 

Think about my signature and what that poem represents; if you treat every man, woman and child on earth as your neighbour, hate becomes irrelevant.

And if you mention ISIS again, that's me done with this thread because they are the result of hate not the source.

Only forgiveness and tolerance can solve that puzzle and route the source.

I never said I was not brainwashed. But my schooling had to do with an honor code and the importance of not calculating your own advantage, but working toward the success of the team.

 

Other groups, other teams have the same rules. So being on a team will define what you think is right and what you think is wrong.

 

 

If you accept that your honour is similar to others, then why can't they be on your team?

 

If you can find enough food and shelter to satisfy/empower all your neighours without starving or suffering yourself, wouldn't your honour code demand that of you?

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” - Frank Herbert

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dimreeper,

 

I get your point. I just do not think you are right. Hating the enemy is natural and useful.

 

For your plan to be effective the other guy would have to be on my team. My neighbor, my teammate my countryman. Going by the same rules.

 

In the case were the other guy shows me he is not on my team, by hurting me and my team, on purpose, to advantage his team, then we have conflict.

 

Let's take a simple example, you are eating a sandwich for lunch and a hungry person passes by and looks at your sandwich and drools. What do you do? The guy then takes your sandwich. What do you do?

 

Or let us take the example from the OP. A guy saying his name is the name that shall not be mentioned, kills 49 of your neighbors that you have sworn to protect...what do you do?

 

Regards, TAR

DrmDoc,

 

I think it is alright to be suspicious, but suspicion based on race, color creed or national origin is prejudice.

 

How are we to put together a terror watch list without potentially stepping on the rights of certain innocent Americans, that just happen to wear a certain garb and attend a certain Mosque?

 

If we are just watching, fine. If we are keeping them from going certain places or buying certain products, then we are not just watching. If they have committed a crime arrest them and put them in jail, if not, if they are American we have to err on the side of being a good neighbor and assuming they are on our side, until they prove otherwise.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a personal story that has taught me to be careful about possibly ruining somebody's life because of suspicion.

 

A crazy neighbor once got into a yelling match with my wife over the neighbor's dog barking at my wife. Later the neighbor attempted suicide and was rescued by neighbors and first responders. I heard later that she told people that she had seen me abusing my daughters in my garage, that was right across the road from her house. I did not do anything of the kind. But had people believed her, I could have been a "suspected" child abuser, which might affect my employment opportunities and put me on a domestic violence or sex abuser watch list. I would not be able to babysit your kid, or chaperone a 5th grade activity night as I did a few days ago. And if we decided to write laws to prevent child abusers from buying a gun, I would not be able to buy a gun. I don't have a reason to buy a gun, but I like to know I could if I wanted to.

who or what am I showing hatred toward?

 

Hateful is not a personality trait, Hatred is an emotion with a reason and a target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a personal story that has taught me to be careful about possibly ruining somebody's life because of suspicion.

 

A crazy neighbor once got into a yelling match with my wife over the neighbor's dog barking at my wife. Later the neighbor attempted suicide and was rescued by neighbors and first responders. I heard later that she told people that she had seen me abusing my daughters in my garage, that was right across the road from her house. I did not do anything of the kind. But had people believed her, I could have been a "suspected" child abuser, which might affect my employment opportunities and put me on a domestic violence or sex abuser watch list. I would not be able to babysit your kid, or chaperone a 5th grade activity night as I did a few days ago. And if we decided to write laws to prevent child abusers from buying a gun, I would not be able to buy a gun. I don't have a reason to buy a gun, but I like to know I could if I wanted to.

who or what am I showing hatred toward?

 

Hateful is not a personality trait, Hatred is an emotion with a reason and a target.

 

 

Do you, really, not understand the irony?

 

Maybe you looked at her funny or did something she didn't approve of; but instead of tolerating it she decided to get revenge/hate; I literally can't hammer home this point any harder.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is alright to be suspicious, but suspicion based on race, color creed or national origin is prejudice.

 

How are we to put together a terror watch list without potentially stepping on the rights of certain innocent Americans, that just happen to wear a certain garb and attend a certain Mosque?

 

If we are just watching, fine. If we are keeping them from going certain places or buying certain products, then we are not just watching. If they have committed a crime arrest them and put them in jail, if not, if they are American we have to err on the side of being a good neighbor and assuming they are on our side, until they prove otherwise.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I agree that appearances or places of origin shouldn't be a criteria for a denial of certain freedoms. To my understanding, the No-Fly list requires more substantive evidence of a real threat. If persons on such a list merit watching, should they merit trust with the purchase of weapons? I think not; however, to be fair, government should insure a path to exhoneration where removal from the list might be obtained and certain freedoms restored. Perhaps this is a discussion best pursued in the Political Forum.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

disarray,
We already have outlawed automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Where would we draw the line, in terms of the power of a weapon. Ban everything more powerful than a pellet gun? And then when somebody gets a eye shot with a pellet gun, ban them too?

 

Pellet gun? Why not make your point by saying "slingshot." But the other extreme is just as valid....do citizens have a right to walk into a store and buy grenades, as long as they aren't certified as insane or serial killers.

 

I think the traditional standard has been that citizens, at least in the U.S., be allowed to have guns for hunting. The gun lobby argument that they need all sorts of high power guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, invading armies, or highly armed criminals are not, from what I have read, very credible.

 

In short, common sense. Too much testosterone in the world that translates into a loss of temper. We don't need to go back to the wild west days where people were walking around with weapons....That's why bouncers check for them at the front door of clubs....Bit of alcohol and guys start wounding or killing each other over nothing.

 

No, we can't stop crime by implementing a little gun control, but, like seat belts, a little effort goes a long way. (By the way, there was also a public outcry in America by those claiming their personal freedoms were being taken away.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread,

 

Yes the gun control debate belongs in politics, but I brought it here, because at first, before we knew anything about the killer in Orlando, people thought it was a hate crime against gay people perpetrated by the NRA and the republicans.

 

The religious right has a thing about marriage between a man and a woman, but there is a big difference between shaking your head at a homosexual, and wanting to kill them.

 

The president immediately went after the right wing and the NRA and the democrats turned to civil disobedience, and taking pictures of the chamber against policy, to demand something be done and common sense gun reform was the answer to the problem and right wing hate was the cause of the problem.

 

After finding out the killer was doing it in the name of the Caliph, and that he had visited the club a dozen times, nobody retracted their false accusation of right wing, republican hate being the cause.

 

Regards, TAR

Let me try to illustrate my point about hating the hater, by imagining that we have all listened to John and Oko and are living in peace and love, without borders or nations, nothing to kill and die for, All of us in full understanding...except for this one guy. We will call him TAR. He is not on board and just will not go along. How would we feel about him, if was running around sowing hatred, killing people, stealing, raping, torturing and otherwise messing up the utopia. Would we tolerate the guy?

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After finding out the killer was doing it in the name of the Caliph, and that he had visited the club a dozen times, nobody retracted their false accusation of right wing, republican hate being the cause.

Let me try to illustrate my point about hating the hater, by imagining that we have all listened to John and Oko and are living in peace and love, without borders or nations, nothing to kill and die for, All of us in full understanding...except for this one guy. We will call him TAR. He is not on board and just will not go along. How would we feel about him, if was running around sowing hatred, killing people, stealing, raping, torturing and otherwise messing up the utopia. Would we tolerate the guy?

 

Perhaps you are putting your own 'spin' on his motives. His ex-wife says that he "was religious, but she saw no signs of radicalism," and that he he was "mentally unstable and mentally ill," and that he was gay. An article notes that "no direct links with Islamic State have been discovered," and his father claims that the attack “has nothing to do with religion” and that he hated the sight of two men kissing. though

 

He is said "to have used a gay dating app" and there may be some connection between him and the fact that "the British born Islamic preacher, Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar, gave a speech just outside Orlando in March in which he called for the death of all homosexuals."

 

Then there is the recent news that a Puerto Rican man "claims he was Orlando shooter's gay lover and says the Pulse nightclub attack was 'revenge' after Omar Mateen discovered one of the men he'd had a threesome with was HIV positive."

 

Looks to me that there are quite a few likely contributing factors, so I am not sure why you are discounting the fact that he may have been agitated by the disparaging attitude towards gays in general (be it by some Republicans, or some Muslims, by some Democrats, by the media, by those who knew him, or whatever) as there seems to be substantive evidence to support that factor.

..................

As for your example about this "one guy," I find it curious that you use your own hashtag as the name of the person in your example. In any case, you are painting a picture that is so extreme that I don't find it very convincing. We don't actually live in a society of gullible, love struck, hippy Pollyannas. Perhaps you are reminiscing about the Hippy Movement. And no one is tolerating criminals on the rampage.

 

Perhaps your question is theoretical....Often times, for example, people ask whether we should take Jesus's alleged advice to turn a cheek to enemies and give them our coats, or perhaps you are thinking of Ghandi's passive resistance attitude towards the British. That is a reasonable question in itself, but I don't see any society today that takes that sort of passive attitude towards violence, as you may be suggesting that there is. But even if you are just putting forth a hypothetical question, I don't think that many people would recommend that the world take a totally passive attitude towards criminal behavior, if that is what you are getting at.

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

Maybe. I am just exploring the nature of hate, as a check on the behavior of others that wish to hurt you or that transgress your rules of behavior. I am not sure how to unwind the shooter thing, and his sexual confusion, and the hatred his father and wife and his religion had for his sexual behavior. But when faced with such a slaughter, everybody wants to find the cause, and find the solution. I am thinking I am on the side of those who would like to find a solution, and I am leaning toward "hating" ISIS. But if its entirely due to Muslim's needing to kill gays then I am not sure how to proceed. I suppose it is ok to try and eliminate people that want to eliminate you.

 

Regards, TAR

But I was just wondering...is one of the reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the U.S. because we don't hate gays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar

But in your 2nd to last post, didn't you object to blaming Republicans and their anti-gay stance, and now you say that it is okay to object to Muslim anti-Gay attitude? Again, I don't see how you can say that others are being biased, when it seems to be the case, as you yourself acknowledge, that you are biased in that your are "leaning toward 'hating' ISIS'.

 

You say, "is one of the reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the U.S. because we don't hate gays?"

 

Again, that seems rather biased....as you assume that there are not plenty of people who hate gays in the U.S., a fact which, again, you seem to overlook in your effort to blame ISIS, as opposed to fundamentalists or anti-gay people in the U.S.

 

The obvious attitude should be that people shouldn't hate people because they are "gay", nor should we hate people who hate "gays," and certainly it is not OK to "ok to try and eliminate people that want to eliminate you" as you stated. Indeed, this sounds something that the shooter himself would have said.

 

In general, hate is not very productive (sarcasm), and there are alternatives, e.g.,

  • Reduce dogmatism and religious elitism
  • Encourage tolerance through education, the media, legislation, discussions, etc.
  • Try to find common ground between people and give them common tasks and goals that encourage bonding and understanding
  • Identify and expose hypocrisy
Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe. I am just exploring the nature of hate, as a check on the behavior of others that wish to hurt you or that transgress your rules of behavior. I am not sure how to unwind the shooter thing, and his sexual confusion, and the hatred his father and wife and his religion had for his sexual behavior. But when faced with such a slaughter, everybody wants to find the cause, and find the solution. I am thinking I am on the side of those who would like to find a solution, and I am leaning toward "hating" ISIS. But if its entirely due to Muslim's needing to kill gays then I am not sure how to proceed. I suppose it is ok to try and eliminate people that want to eliminate you.

 

Regards, TAR

But I was just wondering...is one of the reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the U.S. because we don't hate gays?

 

 

I'll leave you with your fear and hate, plotting your revenge; I can't predict the future but I can

foresee, if you stay on that path, you'll never know peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

 

But here we are getting to what hate is about. You for instance have a certain feeling for gays or against them. You have decided being gay is OK and that only people who also feel being gay is OK are good people. Then you equate people in the U.S. who are uncomfortable with sexual confusion, with fundamentalist Muslims who are, recently, throwing gay people from the tops of buildings.

 

Here is my contention in this thread. That we compartmentalize, within our own being, that which we accept and hold and maintain as good, and that which we reject and fight and dismiss as bad.

.

When we see something that we reject, being exhibited by another person, or see a slippery slope developing where bad stuff is going to occur, we try to stop it.

 

This is called hate, when the thing you are thinking is bad, is something the other person has accepted as good.

 

The world is moving very fast, agreements and rules have changed what is bad and good, what was rejected is now acceptable, what was acceptable is now rejected.

 

And different traditions allow certain things that other traditions ban and consider mortal sin, and certain traditions ban what others accept, and even glorify.

 

But in the U.S. we have made a point of allowing people to follow their own god, which I, for this discussion am considering allowing each person to have their own internal calculus for what is right and what is wrong...as long as the rule of law is followed and one does not interfere with another's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, in the pursuit of your own. That is, I can find homosexuality useless and anal sex disgusting, and conduct my life accordingly, as long as I don't throw gays off of buildings, or take any civil rights away from them and I will satisfy my role as being a good loving fellow citizen with both those citizens who are gay and those who are straight. Same as I can trim a Christmas tree, and love and protect the family next door with a menorah in the window.

 

Now extend this thought, this thought that I am allowed my internal calculus and you are allowed your internal calculus to the drift in this thread, whereby I am not allowed my internal calculus, and according to dimreeper, if I don't change my ways, and adopt his internal calculus I will never know peace. Or to your thought

Reduce dogmatism and religious elitism

•Encourage tolerance through education, the media, legislation, discussions, etc.

•Try to find common ground between people and give them common tasks and goals that encourage bonding and understanding

•Identify and expose hypocrisy

 

This all suggests that I am in error and need to be disciplined. And the correct way to be good is to be undogmatic, unreligious, tolerant, educated, open to discussion, in favor of compromise and unity and understanding, and aware of contradictions and conflicts in ones own thinking and moral code...which are all already considerations I have registered in my "good" column and things I already consider I am doing the right way.

 

So, there has been a certain thread in political discussions of the day of hate and fear belonging to conservatives and love and acceptance belonging to progressives.

 

In reality all four belong to us all.

 

Regards, TAR

we each and all have a "good" compartment and a "bad" compartment in which we place various people and processes and ideas and actions and circumstances, as we go along

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disarray,

But here we are getting to what hate is about. You for instance have a certain feeling for gays or against them. You have decided being gay is OK and that only people who also feel being gay is OK are good people. Then you equate people in the U.S. who are uncomfortable with sexual confusion, with fundamentalist Muslims who are, recently, throwing gay people from the tops of buildings.

This all suggests that I am in error and need to be disciplined. And the correct way to be good is to be undogmatic, unreligious, tolerant, educated, open to discussion, in favor of compromise and unity and understanding, and aware of contradictions and conflicts in ones own thinking and moral code...which are all already considerations I have registered in my "good" column and things I already consider I am doing the right way.

So, there has been a certain thread in political discussions of the day of hate and fear belonging to conservatives and love and acceptance belonging to progressives.

 

I have not suggested that being gay was OK. For example, I would agree that our species would not last very long if 'gayness' ever got too popular. Nor have I said it was "good." However, I would point out that gays are extended the same rights under the law as other citizens.

 

I did point out that you seemed to be inconsistent in that you criticized the anti-gay attitudes found in countries with a high Muslim population, but then seemed to be against blaming anti-gay sentiment that was apparently rife in the shooter's life around the time of the shooting in this country. But no, it is misrepresenting the facts to suggest that there is not violent anti-gay crimes performed here in the U.S, many of which are indeed galvanized by fundamentalist thinking. Need I really site newspaper clippings or can you research that yourself?

 

In any case, I still think that your inconsistency on this point is curious...if you are already unaware of such contradictions in your thinking, I would think that you would not continue to make contradictory statements. But, as a contributor to this discussion, I find nothing egregious about pointing out what appears to me to be contradictory thinking, so I don't know why you would even mention it or find it objectionable. On the other hand, if you don't think you were being contradictory, you just point out your side of things......so, should be no problem. No one said anything about your being disciplined..I think you are overreacting, to be honest.

 

Similarly, my bulleted points about positive ways to deal with hatred was not targeted at you, as you seem to think, but rather just a typical textbook list one might find in a 101 psychology book.

 

I take your point that hatred is an extension of disapproval, and I take your point that people have different opinions as to what is right or wrong, and I take your point that people's ideas of what is right and wrong may vary from place to place, person to person, and time to time, and culture to culture, or whatever....but so what. I'm just against unnecessary violence...period. As to what I think is right or wrong...again, check the U.S. Constitution. As to my personal opinions, who cares...I am not going to get violent about anything that bugs me.

 

And no, I don't think conservatives are all full of fear and hate and progressives are all love and accepting. Indeed, when one looks at history, one finds that one finds unnecessary hatred and violence on all extremes of any particular spectrum you might like to set up. But with regards to the issue of the recent Orlando shooting, it would be my guess that if one did a survey of those who most aggravated the shooter with regards to anti-gay attitudes, I suspect that one would find a disproportionate number of what is called fundamentalists. Whether such fundamentalists could best be described as conservatives, liberals, progressives, environmentalists, zealots, visionaries, traditionalists, nationalists, etc., I will leave up to you.

 

I'm just against excessive and irrational dislike (i.e. hatred that results in violence)...would you agree on this?

Edited by disarray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well sure I would agree disarray, that is why I object to being labeled a hater, when I already hate the hater and would fight to the death to protect a gay person, especially a relative, from bodily or psychological harm focused on them because of their choice of sexual partner. We absolutely have protected gay people and handicapped people and any "kind" of person, from being persecuted in this country. We have made such laws. This is where I as a law abiding citizen of the United States see a contradiction between our laws and Sharia law on the issue of being gay. I do not see it as me being contradictory in my thinking. Anybody that beats up a gay person, or denies them employment or curtails any of their civil liberties is breaking the law, and deserves my scorn.

 

I can impose this standard on my neighbor or on you because they and you are citizens of the U.S. and must abide by the laws we together agree upon, under which to operate.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the tricky contradictory thinking part comes in when a person is conflicted and has two or more standards to which they are holding themselves that are in conflict

 

Taking me, as an example, I always was against gay bashing, and always was, at the same time, stand-off-ish toward homosexuality and thought it less than ideal behavior. I have an openly gay relative, that I love, but would rather he liked girls and got married and settled down and had a couple kids. I don't "get" his choice. Allow it, accept it, think it is OK, but I don't embrace it as a wonderful thing.

 

So here is the tricky part. When it comes to scorn and hate and sideways looks being a way for each of us to attempt to inform the other, of our stance, regarding the other's apparent ideas r intent, speech, or behavior, our stance becomes the important factor. Whether we accept or forgive or object or forbid or embrace, is evident in our looks, our body language, our speech and our actions. I am not so sure what the internal analogues to scorn and sideways looks and anger and are and how we smack ourselves on the butt or punch ourselves in the face, or shoot ourselves or put ourselves in jail, when we have an inappropriate thought of varying degrees of severity.

 

But in the case of our shooter, whatever was going on internally came out and punished us all.

no more ironic than labeling something a hate crime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the tricky contradictory thinking part comes in when a person is conflicted and has two or more standards to which they are holding themselves that are in conflict

 

Taking me, as an example, I always was against gay bashing, and always was, at the same time, stand-off-ish toward homosexuality and thought it less than ideal behavior. I have an openly gay relative, that I love, but would rather he liked girls and got married and settled down and had a couple kids. I don't "get" his choice. Allow it, accept it, think it is OK, but I don't embrace it as a wonderful thing.

 

So here is the tricky part. When it comes to scorn and hate and sideways looks being a way for each of us to attempt to inform the other, of our stance, regarding the other's apparent ideas r intent, speech, or behavior, our stance becomes the important factor. Whether we accept or forgive or object or forbid or embrace, is evident in our looks, our body language, our speech and our actions. I am not so sure what the internal analogues to scorn and sideways looks and anger and are and how we smack ourselves on the butt or punch ourselves in the face, or shoot ourselves or put ourselves in jail, when we have an inappropriate thought of varying degrees of severity.

 

But in the case of our shooter, whatever was going on internally came out and punished us all.

no more ironic than labeling something a hate crime

 

 

Here's a few synonyms for hateful:

 

Bitter, odious, spiteful, heinous, vicious, repulsive...etc...

 

Do you need anymore clues as to why hate is a bad idea?

 

Have you ever met one of the haters you hate? Been attacked by them? Directly threatened by them?

And before you say yes to the last one, don't (no doubt you'll suggest if we don't stop them they will be in a position too) the only way that can happen is your “hating the hater” meet spite with spite you get vicious, meet vicious with vicious you get heinous (see where I'm going with this?).

 

That's the last arrow in my quiver, damn tar your armour's strong.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dimreeper,

 

Your synonyms each have different aspects of hate and a different strength of hatred attached to them, or they would not be different words, with different shades of meaning.

 

If I am in your estimation a hateful person, and bitter about this, spiteful about that, and have some things about my character or behavior or words that repulse you, this is understandable, but for you to bring this to a thread on hate, and hating the hater, indicates your disapproval of my behavior.

 

Regards, TAR

in other words, disapproval is NOT a bad idea

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dimreeper,

 

Your synonyms each have different aspect of hate and a different strength of hatred attached to them, or they would not be different words, with different shades of meaning.

 

If I am in your estimation a hateful person, and bitter about this, spiteful about that, and have some things about my character or behavior or words that repulse you, this is understandable, but for you to bring this to a thread on hate, and hating the hater, indicates your disapproval of my behavior.

 

Regards, TAR

in other words, disapproval is NOT a bad idea

 

 

Acting on it is.

 

Besides I thought we were talking about hate.

Have you ever met one of the haters you hate? Been attacked by them? Directly threatened by them?

And before you say yes to the last one, don't (no doubt you'll suggest if we don't stop them they will be in a position too) the only way that can happen is your “hating the hater” meet spite with spite you get vicious, meet vicious with vicious you get heinous (see where I'm going with this?).

 

Edited into my previous post you may not have read it.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.