ADVERTISEMENT

OT - Hate

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

B1G RED RULES

First Team All-Big Ten
Sep 7, 2013
3,971
4,110
113
I saw a comment earlier regarding Ron Brown's beliefs as "hate". This word seems to be thrown around all the time. So what is the difference between hate and simple disagreement?
Is it hate if I do not agree with:
- a homosexual lifestyle?
- an adulterous lifestyle?
- drinking alcohol to get drunk?
- taking drugs to alter the mind?
- having sexual relations with kids?
- marrying more than one person at a time?
- having sexual relations before marriage?
- misrepresenting the truth to get ahead?
- watching pornography?
- on and on and on....

People have opinions on every one of these items. Why are some opinions considered "hate" while others are just opinions?

I'm sure this will turn into a locked thread, but would be interested in any thoughts.
 
This is a powder keg waiting to explode, but all good questions. Will look forward to the answers that come in before the lock.

That's a pretty broad brush you painted with, but it seems as if, for some, standing up for religious beliefs equals hate. I'm not sure how to change that, and I absolutely could be wrong and misreading what others are saying.

Taking religion out of the equation, can you still have the convictions you mention and it not be considered hate?

I guess we may get to find out...
 
IMO, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing about anything. For example, I disagree with cherry picking about what to strictly adhere to from a 2000 year old text.
 
Egregious Error said:
IMO, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing about anything. For example, I disagree with cherry picking about what to strictly adhere to from a 2000 year old text.
Click to expand...
Hard to argue... Without question the cherry picking has really soured a lot of people. Great point.
 
As a follow up, it perhaps crosses the line into "hate" when you can't provide a logical argument for restricting rights or freedoms and resort to using a 2000 year old text or just a "because I don't like it" type message. For example, I'm okay with homosexuality between two consenting adults. I'm not okay with adults having sexual relations with kids because until some later point in mental, cognitive, and/or emotional development, kids are easily taken advantage of and unable to consent.
 
Egregious Error said:
As a follow up, it perhaps crosses the line into "hate" when you can't provide a logical argument for restricting rights or freedoms and resort to using a 2000 year old text or just a "because I don't like it" type message. For example, I'm okay with homosexuality between two consenting adults. I'm not okay with adults having sexual relations with kids because until some later point in mental, cognitive, and/or emotional development, kids are easily taken advantage of and unable to consent.
Click to expand...
Agree halfway... Simply saying "I don't like it" doesn't cut it. But if a person truly believes said 2000 year old text and applies it consistently, not in a cherry picking way, in your mind is that not good enough?
 
timnsun said:
Agree halfway... Simply saying "I don't like it" doesn't cut it. But if a person truly believes said 2000 year old text and applies it consistently, not in a cherry picking way, in your mind is that not good enough?
Click to expand...

Not good enough for me, unless a rational argument can be provided. Otherwise, presumably any book of at least partial nonsense could be used by a majority to restrict rights and freedoms.
 
B1G RED RULES said:
I saw a comment earlier regarding Ron Brown's beliefs as "hate". This word seems to be thrown around all the time. So what is the difference between hate and simple disagreement?
Is it hate if I do not agree with:
- a homosexual lifestyle?
- an adulterous lifestyle?
- drinking alcohol to get drunk?
- taking drugs to alter the mind?
- having sexual relations with kids?
- marrying more than one person at a time?
- having sexual relations before marriage?
- misrepresenting the truth to get ahead?
- watching pornography?
- on and on and on....

People have opinions on every one of these items. Why are some opinions considered "hate" while others are just opinions?

I'm sure this will turn into a locked thread, but would be interested in any thoughts.
Click to expand...

Hate and disagreement are definitely different things. We can express disagreement without being emotionally invested, e.g., about the solution to a math problem, the best route home, etc... You cannot express hate without emotion, however, it necessarily involves directing a reactive attitude toward someone you repudiate or dislike. And hate is furthermore seen by most to be an irrational emotional response, one the subject almost never deserves, except in maybe extenuating circumstances, one that speaks ill of the agent expressing it.

Now, you name off a bunch of controversial moral topics, which quite readily could lead one to confusing the two, because I don't see how you could have a disagreement with someone on any of those issues without it being emotionally charged. A lot of it depends on how you present and express disagreement. Do you hold up signs in front of bars downtown telling people who drink they're going to hell? That's hateful...

If someone disagrees with you about, say, homosexuality, you may be accused of hate if you don't think they should be allowed to marry, show affection in public, etc... Why? The person is basically accusing of prejudice, i.e., of having no objective reason for your stance, because it is rooted in your disdain for them or their lifestyle. You might legitimately wonder what the basis of such an accusation is if you present your view calmly and take it to be supported by good reasons. But that's a real hard thing to do in this case, because you're denying someone basic rights and privileges you take everyone else in a loving relationship to be entitled to based on whom they choose to sleep and cohabitate with. If it's not rooted in a prejudice or some judgment about their moral depravity, I'm not sure what it's rooted in.
 
Last edited:
Egregious Error said:
As a follow up, it perhaps crosses the line into "hate" when you can't provide a logical argument for restricting rights or freedoms and resort to using a 2000 year old text or just a "because I don't like it" type message. For example, I'm okay with homosexuality between two consenting adults. I'm not okay with adults having sexual relations with kids because until some later point in mental, cognitive, and/or emotional development, kids are easily taken advantage of and unable to consent.
Click to expand...
I take it you are ok with incest then as long as it is two adults?

Is it ok to have sex with animals?

Homosexuality has been wrong in practically every culture and time throughout the existence of mankind, but now that we are "enlightened", it is perfectly normal. It is not a natural process, otherwise it would be something that would result in offspring. So say it is some 2000 year old text that forbids it all you want, but the laws of nature abhor it too.
 
timnsun said:
Why is it so hard to believe that for many, it isn't about hate or disdain? If I disagree with someone based on what I believe in the bible, why am I treated as one who hates?

You say if it's not rooted in prejudice or moral judgment, you don't know what it is rooted in... The bible does make moral judgments. In fact, just about any holy book is rooted in moral judgments. That doesn't equal hatred. Point me to the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or the bible, and see the moral judgments.

I get tired of people claiming that moral judgments based off of religion is hatred. In my wedding one of my groomsmen was gay. I don't agree with his lifestyle, but if I hated him, would I have asked him to stand up in my wedding?

People have a funny notion that if you're religious you automatically hate certain kinds of people. I don't get it. It's short-sighted, and dare I say, prejudiced?
Click to expand...

No argument from me here. We are all free to believe what we want or disagree with certain lifestyles and that doesn't inherently make us hateful.
 
The laws of nature don't exactly abhor homosexual behavior. Practically every mammal species engages in it, from apes to sheep to cattle to whales, etc. In some species male homosexuality is statistically more prevalent than in humans.
 
I can hate an action or behavior and not hate the person. I hated that a friend had an affair...but I love her.
 
FuzzyFreddy said:
I take it you are ok with incest then as long as it is two adults?

Is it ok to have sex with animals?

Homosexuality has been wrong in practically every culture and time throughout the existence of mankind, but now that we are "enlightened", it is perfectly normal. It is not a natural process, otherwise it would be something that would result in offspring. So say it is some 2000 year old text that forbids it all you want, but the laws of nature abhor it too.
Click to expand...

No, animals are incapable of consent in a similar manner as children.

My answer on incest is a bit more complex, but to keep it short, no. It tends to be destructive to an already existing family unit. Laws against incest only prevent specific instances of sexual relationships, not an entire orientation. If you're hot for sister, there are literally millions or billions of other options available.

On the other hand, laws against homosexuality prevent the formation of a family unit, and block lesbians from having a sex life and/or public love life.

I disagree with your last paragraph completely.
 
CC_Lemming said:
Hate and disagreement are definitely different things. We can express disagreement without being emotionally invested, e.g., about the solution to a math problem, the best route home, etc... You cannot express hate without emotion, however, it necessarily involves directing a reactive attitude toward someone you repudiate or dislike. And hate is furthermore seen by most to be an irrational emotional response, one the subject almost never deserves, except in maybe extenuating circumstances, one that speaks ill of the agent expressing it.

Now, you name off a bunch of controversial moral topics, which quite readily could lead one to confusing the two, because I don't see how you could have a disagreement with someone on any of those issues without it being emotionally charged. A lot of it depends on how you present and express disagreement. Do you hold up signs in front of bars downtown telling people who drink they're going to hell? That's hateful...

If someone disagrees with you about, say, homosexuality, you may be accused of hate if you don't think they should be allowed to marry, show affection in public, etc... Why? The person is basically accusing of prejudice, i.e., of having no objective reason for your stance, because it is rooted in your disdain for them or their lifestyle. You might legitimately wonder what the basis of such an accusation is if you present your view calmly and take it to be supported by good reasons. But that's a real hard thing to do in this case, because you're denying someone basic rights and privileges you take everyone else in a loving relationship to be entitled to based on whom they choose to sleep and cohabitate with. If it's not rooted in a prejudice or some judgment about their moral depravity, I'm not sure what it's rooted in.
Click to expand...
You mentioned disagreeing for no objective reason for your stance could be considered hate. What is an objective reason? Is it based upon popular opinion, is it based upon your own personal philosophy, is it based upon a person's faith guidelines?

This is where things really get muddy in my opinion. If a person has no faith, then their guiding principles are based upon how they were raised and the norms of society and may think a person of faith looks ridiculous. On the other hand, a person of faith believes in a higher power and the guidelines that they believe have been established for them to live by and view a person with no faith as being lost. I think it is cool that we live in a country where all opinions are free to be aired and shared. If popular opinion get strong enough, things will get turned into law. For example, abortions are now legal, even though it is a highly divisive subject. Gay marriage will be legal within the next several years, because that is just the trend that is happening. It seems unimaginable right now, but pedophilia is rapidly changing and what we consider pedophilia today will be a norm to some extent in 50 years and our kids or grandkids will likely tell us how uninformed and shallow thinking we were today. If you don't believe me on that, Google some of the new studies that are being conducted that says pedophiles are "born that way". If they are born that way, how can we judge them? Remember, that argument has been used effectively for other debates so far. Can we pick and choose how we want to use it?

Also, check out the website NAMBLA. Now I hope that I can disagree with a group like this and not be a hater because it goes against my beliefs, but apparently there is a growing number who believe in this lifestyle, so who knows?
 
100 years ago life was a struggle for most people and their primary concern was putting food on the table, dealing with a kid who got polio, etc. Now most people have it too easy so instead of working in the fields all day and preparing meals, they sit around and figure out ways to hate people. The combination of so much free time and so many media ways to express dissatisfaction with other people makes for a more hateful country.
 
Husker.Wed. said:
100 years ago life was a struggle for most people and their primary concern was putting food on the table, dealing with a kid who got polio, etc. Now most people have it too easy so instead of working in the fields all day and preparing meals, they sit around and figure out ways to hate people. The combination of so much free time and so many media ways to express dissatisfaction with other people makes for a more hateful country.
Click to expand...
THIS.
 
The difference between being gay and those other things in the OP is that you don't get to pick who you're attracted to. Gay is gay. They're not just doing it to mess with you.

Just like you and I don't ever remember the day we had to go, "Hmmm...should I go for men or should I go for women?" they didn't pick that sexual orientation. You're pretty much assigned your patterns of attraction. I never weighed the pros and cons of being into the ladies, I just one day realized how AMAZING boobs are.

Could you know you're gay, be attracted to the same sex, and choose to deny that and live in a straight relationship or no relationship at all? Yes, you could. Some people do. But why is that necessary other than because the Old Testament says so? The Old Testament says lots of things, we adhere to almost none of them.

I think it's a bit much to hold Ron Brown up as some kind of hate-monger. I don't think he would treat any individual poorly, but I don't think he understands that for gay people it feels just as bad to hear people say they're sinners and it's wrong and against God's will as it would if somebody were racist toward him.
 
FuzzyFreddy said:
I take it you are ok with incest then as long as it is two adults?

Is it ok to have sex with animals?

Homosexuality has been wrong in practically every culture and time throughout the existence of mankind, but now that we are "enlightened", it is perfectly normal. It is not a natural process, otherwise it would be something that would result in offspring. So say it is some 2000 year old text that forbids it all you want, but the laws of nature abhor it too.
Click to expand...

How does it make your life any different or any worse to just leave gay people alone?
 
B1G RED RULES said:
You mentioned disagreeing for no objective reason for your stance could be considered hate. What is an objective reason? Is it based upon popular opinion, is it based upon your own personal philosophy, is it based upon a person's faith guidelines?

This is where things really get muddy in my opinion. If a person has no faith, then their guiding principles are based upon how they were raised and the norms of society and may think a person of faith looks ridiculous. On the other hand, a person of faith believes in a higher power and the guidelines that they believe have been established for them to live by and view a person with no faith as being lost. I think it is cool that we live in a country where all opinions are free to be aired and shared. If popular opinion get strong enough, things will get turned into law. For example, abortions are now legal, even though it is a highly divisive subject. Gay marriage will be legal within the next several years, because that is just the trend that is happening. It seems unimaginable right now, but pedophilia is rapidly changing and what we consider pedophilia today will be a norm to some extent in 50 years and our kids or grandkids will likely tell us how uninformed and shallow thinking we were today. If you don't believe me on that, Google some of the new studies that are being conducted that says pedophiles are "born that way". If they are born that way, how can we judge them? Remember, that argument has been used effectively for other debates so far. Can we pick and choose how we want to use it?

Also, check out the website NAMBLA. Now I hope that I can disagree with a group like this and not be a hater because it goes against my beliefs, but apparently there is a growing number who believe in this lifestyle, so who knows?
Click to expand...

Both Kant (a Christian) and John Stuart Mill (an agnostic) provide you objective decision procedures for deciding whether a course of action is permissible or not. For Kant this is the formula of humanity (also, formula of universal law), and Mill, the principle of utility. Neither would license denying someone basic rights and privileges based on what they choose to do with other consenting adults.

I take your middle paragraph seriously in that upbringing and culture determine many of our norms and that shapes what we're willing to accept as reasonable. I disagree that they determine them completely, however, as we are all capable of rejecting the norms of our parents and culture. So I disagree with nearly all the lessons you try to draw from this.

I disagree that pedophilia will be accepted 50 years from now because it is not an act undertaken between two consenting adults. While you're initial insight is correct in that most pedophiles have pedophilic impulses that they cannot control, which is in tension with our ability to hold them accountable for their actions, that by itself does not make an action justified. The difference between the pedophile and the homosexual on this point is significant, because while there are good reasons to condemn pedophilia (stemming from the effects it has on the victim), there are no good reasons that I am aware of for telling someone they cannot love or cohabitate with another consenting adult.
 
Going back to the OPs list.....and the suggestion of rational vs irrational arguements to defend stance....there are some of the things on that list that create more emotional responses than others. For instance, it is common to see people protest with signs against abortion and homosexuality. But I have never seen people line "O" street with posters blasting sex outside of marriage. ?????? It is all subjective. From a societal standpoint...because unplanned pregnancy has become a huge financial and social burden in our communities....I am much more concerned about the consequences of casual sex than I am homosexuality or abortion. Each to his own
 
CC_Lemming said:
Both Kant (a Christian) and John Stuart Mill (an agnostic) provide you objective decision procedures for deciding whether a course of action is permissible or not. For Kant this is the formula of humanity (also, formula of universal law), and Mill, the principle of utility. Neither would license denying someone basic rights and privileges based on what they choose to do with other consenting adults.

I take your middle paragraph seriously in that upbringing and culture determine many of our norms and that shapes what we're willing to accept as reasonable. I disagree that they determine them completely, however, as we are all capable of rejecting the norms of our parents and culture. So I disagree with nearly all the lessons you try to draw from this.

I disagree that pedophilia will be accepted 50 years from now because it is not an act undertaken between two consenting adults. While you're initial insight is correct in that most pedophiles have pedophilic impulses that they cannot control, which is in tension with our ability to hold them accountable for their actions, that by itself does not make an action justified. The difference between the pedophile and the homosexual on this point is significant, because while there are good reasons to condemn pedophilia (stemming from the effects it has on the victim), there are no good reasons that I am aware of for telling someone they cannot love or cohabitate with another consenting adult.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
stxhusker said:
As far as liberals are concerned, if you disagree with them, you are a hater.
Click to expand...

I am a liberal, as are most of my friends. I don't think people who disagree with my are automatically haters and none of my friends do either, as far as I have seen or know. Now the California attorney who has tried to start the legislative process to have homosexuals killed I would call a hater, based on what has been reported about his agenda. I would also call the Westboro Baptist members haters, again based what I have seen of them personally and what their own website says. But I am always willing to listen other sides. That doesn't mean you will change my mind, but I will listen respectfully as long as your presentation is at least reasonably respectful AND based upon verifiable facts. I fully believe in Harlan Ellison's mantra: "You are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion."
 
Ok ladies and gentlemen. This thread is treading on very thin ice. I see that a few of the posts have been deleted. This thread is on the brink of elimination. I will leave it open for now against my better judgement. So far this has been a debate with no personal attack, but I think we all know where it will end up.
 
In general, public figures would do well to recognize that the opinions have shifted on the issue, and that particular train has left the station. Being against gay rights has become a minority opinion and laws that seek to define gay people as second-class citizens are not long for this nation. I would just about promise you that whoever wins the GOP primary will not go into the general election being vocally anti-gay-rights.

Great article here on how the opinions have shifted on the issue with each generation.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03...iage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/
 
sparky62 said:
Ok ladies and gentlemen. This thread is treading on very thin ice. I see that a few of the posts have been deleted. This thread is on the brink of elimination. I will leave it open for now against my better judgement. So far this has been a debate with no personal attack, but I think we all know where it will end up.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to ban the sinner, not lock the sin. :D
 
Thank you for leaving it open as long as possible. For the most part, I think it has been civil. Lots of disagreement, but no hatred. Winking
 
Egregious Error said:
IMO, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing about anything. For example, I disagree with cherry picking about what to strictly adhere to from a 2000 year old text.
Click to expand...
Agree with you 100%. If somebody chooses to believe 100% of what was written or just portions, that is their choice and in my opinion does not make the a hater. Calling somebody a hater when you disagree seems intellectually lazy.
 
What would happen in our communities if we chose to concentrate on what we have in common....rather than on issues we dont agree on??? Amazing things!!!!
 
TheBeav815 said:
I'm not the board angel by any means, but given the extent to which I've been cussed at and told that I have a "broken family" of late, I think I do a solid job of keeping it PG.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That was some of the lowest stuff I've ever seen on here. Ignored that person immediately after.

Given that the thread will almost certainly be locked, I hope we can at least agree that hate and disagreement are not the same thing.

To hate someone you must necessarily disagree with them, but the reverse isn't true. I agree with the spirit of the OP's post, "hate" is a word that is thrown around too flippantly. Whether or not you hate someone or simply disagree with their lifestyle depends both on how you present the disagreement and what its basis is. Even if you present disagreement passionately and present poor reasons for your position, I'm still not inclined to call that hate. Rather, I'd call it prejudice, or intolerance, but I think hate goes beyond that. Hate is more active and destructive in its repudiation, not a mere stance of disapproval. Hitler clearly hated, Westboro cleary hates, both would like to see a world rid of the objects of their ridicule.

If you are not actively trying to oppress someone, I'm inclined to think you don't hate them. But if one's stance on homosexuality is such that they should be denied certain rights and privileges, it does become an interesting question whether you're trying to actively suppress them, and whether your disapproval is hate.
 
TheBeav815 said:
I'm not the board angel by any means, but given the extent to which I've been cussed at and told that I have a "broken family" of late, I think I do a solid job of keeping it PG.
Click to expand...

Sorry Beav, I missed that post. Drop me an email and I'll see if I can find it.
 
sparky62 said:
Sorry Beav, I missed that post. Drop me an email and I'll see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
That was me. I let Beav troll get to me when he once again went personal. Apparently he doesn't like it the other way around. Weird. Sad part was is he tried to attack me and claim I don't "volounteer" enough, like he somehow has a clue what I do.
 
kchu5ker555 said:
Ron Brown says what he says out of love, not hate.
Click to expand...


Most likely that only makes sense to someone who holds those biblical views. To everyone else...it probably comes off as discrimination, judgement, intolerance, etc. For example, I am a conservative Evangelical. As a single person, if someone in the church called me out for having an affair....I know that it would be done out of love in an effort to bring me back to obedience. If I tried to correct a casual friend who is sleeping around...and not a practicing Christian....she would tell me to mind my own business. Its all about reference points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back