Hate

hate implies anger. hate implies effort that the hated object doesn't deserve. you take time out of your life to hate something when you would have achieved the same effect if you simply declared a dislike and/or contempt and moved on

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, but not always.
I have the sort of nature that lets my thoughts turn into words and actions as directly as possible. Some others let their thoughts build up(supress them).

Do you think hate leads to anger,(I'm assuming you do), and that the subsequent anger leads to memory loss? I have observed this phenomena many times and often wonder why pe ...[text shortened]... t themselves continue with the ensuing vicious circle(s)?
But one question at a time,eh? 🙂

I don't know whether hate necessarily leads to anger. For example, hate might lead a person to seek revenge, but we often think that the taking of revenge can be quite clinical, hence the popular phrases "revenge is a dish best served cold", and "don't get mad, get even".

I have never, to my knowledge, experienced memory loss through anger and was unaware of this phenomenon.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I don't know whether hate necessarily leads to anger. For example, hate might lead a person to seek revenge, but we often think that the taking of revenge can be quite clinical, hence the popular phrases "revenge is a dish best served cold", and "don't get mad, get even".

I have never, to my knowledge, experienced memory loss through anger and was unaware of this phenomenon.

you can't use popular saying as arguments.

not reasonable arguments anyway

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you can't use popular saying as arguments.

not reasonable arguments anyway

I wasn't making a reasonable argument, just speculating about the relation of hate and anger and using the popular sayings to draw attention to the fact that there is at least some popular cultural representation of their separation. As I said, I'm not sure about it, but if you want to make a 'reasonable argument' that hate entails anger, go ahead.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I wasn't making a reasonable argument, just speculating about the relation of hate and anger and using the popular sayings to draw attention to the fact that there is at least some popular cultural representation of their separation. As I said, I'm not sure about it, but if you want to make a 'reasonable argument' that hate entails anger, go ahead.

hate is a visceral feeling. a strong feeling. people use hate all the time but few use it correctly.

i can say i hate spinach but i really merely dislike it. but i hate the nazis. i hate them with a passion, what they stood for and what they did. the thought of that makes me angry. but if we are to analyze my hate and anger, we would see it is counterproductive. i expend energy to hate some concept that died long ago. who is this energy spent for? is it worth it?


that is why i submit the idea that anger and hate are unnecessary. what we only need is contempt and dislike.


about your sayings : they are not helpful. you jumped from hate to anger to revenge to cool revenge. to the necessity of "getting even". that isn't logical either and deviates from the subject.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
hate is a visceral feeling. a strong feeling. people use hate all the time but few use it correctly.

i can say i hate spinach but i really merely dislike it. but i hate the nazis. i hate them with a passion, what they stood for and what they did. the thought of that makes me angry. but if we are to analyze my hate and anger, we would see it is counterpro ...[text shortened]... to the necessity of "getting even". that isn't logical either and deviates from the subject.

I disagree, the sayings are very helpful because they draw attention to the distinction between hate as an intentional stance and the immediate expression of this via the strong emotion of anger.

Perhaps for you, one always leads to the other, but I don't think it does for me. Perhaps you are rather hot headed. In any case, I think my speculations make sense and are relevant.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I disagree, the sayings are very helpful because they draw attention to the distinction between hate as an intentional stance and the immediate expression of this via the strong emotion of anger.

Perhaps for you, one always leads to the other, but I don't think it does for me. Perhaps you are rather hot headed. In any case, I think my speculations make sense and are relevant.

how am i a hot head when i propose the removal of hate from our lives? how is revenge logical?

"distinction between hate as an intentional stance and the immediate expression of this via the strong emotion of anger"
what does this even mean? they are two different things how can you compare them? hate is a strong emotion. anger is a strong emotion but it also doesn't always materialize into revenge. hate doesn't always lead to revenge and ideally it should never lead to revenge.


would you like to rephrase that?


Perhaps for you, one always leads to the other
you misunderstood me. i don't think hate leads to revenge. and if you don't as well then your previous post makes even less sense.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how am i a hot head when i propose the removal of hate from our lives? how is revenge logical?

"distinction between hate as an intentional stance and the immediate expression of this via the strong emotion of anger"
what does this even mean? they are two different things how can you compare them? hate is a strong emotion. anger is a strong emotion but i ...[text shortened]... leads to revenge. and if you don't as well then your previous post makes even less sense.

how am i a hot head when i propose the removal of hate from our lives? how is revenge logical?
Being hot headed is a kind of temperament. There is no contradiction between you being hot headed and you proposing the removal of hate from our lives. If hate always leads you to anger because you are hot headed, and you recognise that this is counterproductive for you, then you have a strong motive to expunge hate from your life.

I never said revenge was logical.

what does this even mean?
I have a stance, for example, toward the Nazi regime which is that I hate it. I don't express that hatred through anger.

they are two different things how can you compare them?
I think you'll find that we generally compare different things to describe the similarities and differences. I don't see the point in comparing things if we know they are the same.

anger is a strong emotion but it also doesn't always materialize into revenge.
I didn't say anger 'always materialize into revenge'. Rather I'm speculating that, in some cases, hatred can lead to revenge without anger being involved.

would you like to rephrase that?
I don't think there was anything wrong with it, but I have put the points differently again here to aid understanding.

you misunderstood me. i don't think hate leads to revenge. and if you don't as well then your previous post makes even less sense.
On the contrary, it is you who has misunderstood. I meant that for you, perhaps hate always leads to anger. I don't think it does for me.

Nor am I saying that hate necessarily leads to revenge, just that it can sometimes.

I hope that clarifies.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]how am i a hot head when i propose the removal of hate from our lives? how is revenge logical?
Being hot headed is a kind of temperament. There is no contradiction between you being hot headed and you proposing the removal of hate from our lives. If hate always leads you to anger because you are hot headed, and you recognise that this is counterp ...[text shortened]... necessarily leads to revenge, just that it can sometimes.

I hope that clarifies.[/b]

hate sometimes leads to eating large quantities of chocolate. how is this helpful.

we are not putting forth examples of what hate leads to. we are discussing hate and what should happen. how is better to express hate. if it is better to forego hate altogether.

"There is no contradiction between you being hot headed and you proposing the removal of hate from our lives"
no there isn't. you are right. by this argument, jesus was a murderer that abstained from murdering and proposed we eliminate murder altogether. ghandi was a warmongerer that preached peace, mother theresa was an insensitive b|tch that proposed compassion. it makes total sense.

If hate always leads you to anger because you are hot headed, and you recognise that this is counterproductive for you, then you have a strong motive to expunge hate from your life.
hate doesn't lead me to anger, i don't get angry, i get annoyed, i don't hate i dislike or harbour contempt, i am not hot headed i am calm, and i do have a strong motive to expunge hate from my life, not that i am hot headed but because i am human and this is what humans must do. all humans, even the calm ones. even humans whose hate doesn't lead to anger.

I have a stance, for example, toward the Nazi regime which is that I hate it. I don't express that hatred through anger.
if by hate you mean dislike, you are right. if you mean more then you are making an extra effort in disliking the nazis. you are wasting energy better used in loving your children, or planting a tree.

Rather I'm speculating that, in some cases, hatred can lead to revenge without anger being involved.
again, you are stating the obvious without offering any insight. is that wrong, is that right, what should be instead, what shouldn't, how can it be improved and so on. you did not asked these questions so i don't know how to aproach the matter.


you said that you do not know if hate leads to anger and you jumped from that to "for example" hate leads to revenge. as if revenge is anger free. then you continued with claiming revenge is free of passion and somehow calculated(dish best served cold) and is somehow justified (don't get mad, get even). i have a problem with this reasoning and now you claim you have too which means the use of those catch phrases, quite catchy but stupid, was uncalled for.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
hate sometimes leads to eating large quantities of chocolate. how is this helpful.

we are not putting forth examples of what hate leads to. we are discussing hate and what should happen. how is better to express hate. if it is better to forego hate altogether.

"There is no contradiction between you being hot headed and you proposing the removal of hat ...[text shortened]... h means the use of those catch phrases, quite catchy but stupid, was uncalled for.

hate sometimes leads to eating large quantities of chocolate. how is this helpful.
How is this comment helpful?

we are not putting forth examples of what hate leads to. we are discussing hate and what should happen. how is better to express hate. if it is better to forego hate altogether.
You might be determined to talk in those terms despite the lack of relevance to the dialogue I was having with karoly, but I am not.

no there isn't. you are right. by this argument, jesus was a murderer that abstained from murdering and proposed we eliminate murder altogether. ghandi was a warmongerer that preached peace, mother theresa was an insensitive b|tch that proposed compassion. it makes total sense.
You have made a basic error of logic here I'm afraid. Just because proposing the removal of hate from our lives is compatible with being a hot head it does not follow that everybody who advocates the removal of hate is a hot head.

if by hate you mean dislike, you are right. if you mean more then you are making an extra effort in disliking the nazis. you are wasting energy better used in loving your children, or planting a tree.
I'm clearly not using the term 'hate' in the same way as you. I think I'll stick with my usage thanks.

again, you are stating the obvious without offering any insight.
Well you claimed you didn't understand, so I made it simpler and more obvious and now you are complaining there is no insight. Actually I don't think you are receptive to any insight I might offer.

you said that you do not know if hate leads to anger and you jumped from that to "for example" hate leads to revenge. as if revenge is anger free. then you continued with claiming revenge is free of passion and somehow calculated(dish best served cold) and is somehow justified (don't get mad, get even).
You seem to have had some difficulty following the argument, so despite my suspicion that I will be unable to corkscrew my argument sufficiently that it will come out striaght in your head, I'll summarise again here.

karoly asked "Do you think hate leads to anger...?"

I wasn't sure and I speculated about it this way.

One good way to tell what stance somebody really has on something or somebody is to look at how they act.

Hate can in some circumstances lead to revenge.

The popular sayings about revenge reveal that it can be cold and clinical. (It would not do to argue that just because these sayings are popular that they must be wrong, but so far you haven't come up with anything substantive against this view)

I then speculated that perhaps hate could lead to revenge without anger ever playing a part. I reflected on my own understanding of hate and came to the conclusion that for me, hate doesn't necessarily lead to anger.

i have a problem with this reasoning and now you claim you have too which means the use of those catch phrases, quite catchy but stupid, was uncalled for
Unfortunately you haven't managed to articulate the problem you have with this in a way that makes sense to me. I don't have a problem with it at all, but I do find some of your interpretations and wild inferences from what I've said perplexing.

..nice going guys..

Interesting you haven't come across the anger 'leading to memory loss' theory. In fact I would say its a truth,or at least a truism.
When I say this I mean specifically anger and note hate or dislike,revenge,etc.
This memory loss business is one of the main characteristics that I acsociate with anger. Its a bit like alcohol ,though. Some people go off after two glasses others hardly have a problem.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]hate sometimes leads to eating large quantities of chocolate. how is this helpful.
How is this comment helpful?

we are not putting forth examples of what hate leads to. we are discussing hate and what should happen. how is better to express hate. if it is better to forego hate altogether.
You might be determined to talk in those terms d ...[text shortened]... of your interpretations and wild inferences from what I've said perplexing.[/b]

How is this comment helpful?
just as you said that sometimes hate leads to one thing, i said hate leads to another. neither of us made any useful contribution to the discussion. we are discussing hate, we discuss what usually happens, we discuss what should happen. something useful, insightful. this forum is annoying as it is, there is no need to state the obvious.

lack of relevance to the dialogue I was having with karoly
that's your problem and opinion. doesn't have to be mine.

You have made a basic error of logic here I'm afraid
oh, so when you call me a hothead that refuses to be a hothead without any kind of logic backing it up is ok. when i call jesus a murderer that refuses to murder is not ok.
both claims were made without any proof, and with complete disregard to logic. a thief that doesn't steal is a contradiction. it doesn't exist. either you are a thief or you aren't. you could have been in the past, that is not important. i was in a school theater troop once, but you don't see me introduce myself : Zahlanzi, actor

I'm clearly not using the term 'hate' in the same way as you
clearly. you use hate for both "i hate spinach" and "i hate nazis". it is really useful to have the same term describe two totally diferent concepts.

simpler and more obvious
lack of insight doesn't make simpler and obvious.

about your summary:
first sentence is wrong. we are not looking at how someone acts we are looking at how hate works. we are looking at the general opposed to the particular.

hate can in some circumstances lead to revenge is again wrong. again because you talk about the particular and because it is illogical. i hate the nazis, i don't take revenge on them. i might lock some nazi up as "legal revenge" for killing a jew or more, but it is not my hate that caused me to lock them up, it was them killing a jew. their actions triggered the revenge, me hating him was just coincidental.
see what i did here? i said what would be logical and basically the real world agrees with me. all cases of revenge are taken as a result of some actions events, the hate is just an extra bonus.

The popular sayings about revenge reveal that it can be cold and clinical. (It would not do to argue that just because these sayings are popular that they must be wrong, but so far you haven't come up with anything substantive against this view)
most popular saying are indeed wrong. they represent stereotypes of the popular mind that have no useful impact. but that is for another thread and it would be interesting to debate. what i did have a problem with was your sayings which are clearly wrong.

don't get mad, get even? sure, launch into a string of retributions until one participant realizes its more productive to get mad and yell at the moon than to hurt the other participant in the name of retribution. what is retribution anyway? someone hurt you and you will hurt them in return? does that make your pain go away? you feel less pain because someone else is also in pain? sadistic much?

revenge is a dish best served cold? revenge is passion, is cathartic, is anything but cold. when someone manages to get a cool head before said revenge he should realize what he is doing and stop. those that really get cool and still get their revenge are little better than the person they are revenging on.

I then speculated that perhaps hate could lead to revenge without anger ever playing a part. I reflected on my own understanding of hate and came to the conclusion that for me, hate doesn't necessarily lead to anger.
if hating spinach and hating nazis is the same thing for you, no wonder anger doesn't always play a part in your hate. because it shouldn't. i don't get angry either when i think about spinach. then again, i don't get angry when i think about nazis either.
which leads me to my claim that hate should only be the "i hate spinach" kind. should entail only dislike, contempt. should be free of anger and fear. which you didn't get. you kept blabbering about what sometimes happen you didn't realize i was arguing a different thing.

and of course you did those logical blunders which distracted me and made us deviate from the subject. the "i am a hothead that doesn't engage in hotheaded actions" was my favourite.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]How is this comment helpful?
just as you said that sometimes hate leads to one thing, i said hate leads to another. neither of us made any useful contribution to the discussion. we are discussing hate, we discuss what usually happens, we discuss what should happen. something useful, insightful. this forum is annoying as it is, there is no need to s ...[text shortened]... head that doesn't engage in hotheaded actions" was my favourite.[/b]

just as you said that sometimes hate leads to one thing, i said hate leads to another. neither of us made any useful contribution to the discussion.
I disagree.

Firstly, what do we see in the world? Bitterly opposed factions in the trouble spots of the globe comprising mainly:

a) people munching chocolate
or
b) tit for tat violence

which is more relevant would you say?

Secondly, the fact that sometimes hate leads to revenge was directly related to the question from karoly about whether hate leads to anger. What is the relevance of chocolate?

we are discussing hate, we discuss what usually happens, we discuss what should happen. something useful, insightful. this forum is annoying as it is, there is no need to state the obvious.
Unless sometimes people seem incapable of grasping even that. I was discussing hate with karoly, and thinking about whether hate always or necessarily involves anger. You have your opinion about how insightful that has been and of course that's fine.

that's your problem and opinion. doesn't have to be mine.
I have no problem with you having a different opinion.

oh, so when you call me a hothead that refuses to be a hothead without any kind of logic backing it up is ok. when i call jesus a murderer that refuses to murder is not ok.

1) I wondered whether your view that hate implies anger was influenced by your own experience and temperament. Wondering whether you are a hothead is not the same as calling you a hothead, I don't know you and I don't know whether you are quick to temper or not.

2) I already explained that hotheadedness is a temperament. That is, somebody who is more prone to bouts of temper when provoked. But that doesn't mean they are unable, when calm, to reflect on this and take evasive action, like when an alcoholic takes steps to avoid alcohol. There is no logical contradiction.

3) You said that by my argument, jesus is a murderer that refuses to murder, and that's not ok. He might have been for all I know. Maybe his serene and exemplary conduct was a result of a prodigious and triumphant inner struggle against his murderous nature, but I doubt it. The basic error of logic that you have made is to assume that my argument implies that this is true. It doesn't. All it does is show that it is possible for people to overcome aspects of their temperament.

both claims were made without any proof, and with complete disregard to logic. a thief that doesn't steal is a contradiction. it doesn't exist. either you are a thief or you aren't. you could have been in the past, that is not important. i was in a school theater troop once, but you don't see me introduce myself : Zahlanzi, actor
I have made no claim that you are a hothead, I just speculated that you might be. So far you haven't explicitly confirmed or denied this, and nor are you obliged to.
But temperament isn't like being an actor. Acting is something people do, the ones that do it for a living might be called 'actors'. Hotheadedness probably is a fairly fixed aspect of personality with some biological basis. So there is no contradiction. Like the alcoholic who will always be an alcoholic but who has given up the drink.

clearly. you use hate for both "i hate spinach" and "i hate nazis".
No I don't. I might say 'I don't care for spinach'. Why have you made this ridiculous unevidenced claim?

it is really useful to have the same term describe two totally diferent concepts.
It is really useful for somebody to be sarcastic on the basis of a ridiculous unevidenced claim.

first sentence is wrong. we are not looking at how someone acts we are looking at how hate works. we are looking at the general opposed to the particular.
I disagree. My point is that hate does not necessarily involve anger. That's a general statement.

hate can in some circumstances lead to revenge is again wrong. again because you talk about the particular and because it is illogical.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that my view that hate can in some circumstances lead to revenge, is wrong?

i hate the nazis, i don't take revenge on them.
That's a particular case. Now you are talking about the particular.

see what i did here? i said what would be logical and basically the real world agrees with me. all cases of revenge are taken as a result of some actions events, the hate is just an extra bonus.
I think what you did here is talk nonsense. It isn't the events which produce human action in a way that is separate from human attitudes and emotions. Your 'hate is a bonus' theory is implausible.

most popular saying are indeed wrong.
Do you have any evidence for that claim?

what i did have a problem with was your sayings which are clearly wrong.
I disagree. Do you have any evidence or coherent argument to offer in support of this assertion?

don't get mad, get even? sure, launch into a string of retributions until one participant realizes its more productive to get mad and yell at the moon than to hurt the other participant in the name of retribution.
There is nothing in what I have said that entitles you to infer that I in any way endorse the sentiments expressed by these popular sayings. Hence your rant against them is irrelevant.

revenge is a dish best served cold? revenge is passion, is cathartic, is anything but cold.
That might be true for some people. Maybe it is for you? Or maybe you are not the sort of person who indulges in revenge and therefore doesn't really know what they are talking about?

if hating spinach and hating nazis is the same thing for you, no wonder anger doesn't always play a part in your hate.
You made that up though, remember? I don't use 'hate' when referring to anything like spinach.

you kept blabbering about what sometimes happen you didn't realize i was arguing a different thing.
I think this state of affairs owes more to the train-wreck that you call your argument than any lack of realization on my part.

and of course you did those logical blunders which distracted me and made us deviate from the subject. the "i am a hothead that doesn't engage in hotheaded actions" was my favourite.
I disagree, there is no logical contradiction there. You can be an alcoholic who takes steps to avoid drink and you can be a hothead who takes steps to avoid confrontation. I'm not accusing you of being either of course.