Hate and hating the hater.

[tar]

need I remind you who the Great Satan is?

what is their point?

um, I think "their" point is that I am in error, and need to convert

 

is that your point, as well?

[dimreepr]

what is their point?

 

 

To make you fear them, they welcome your hate and feed off it, tolerance starves them.

Start with tolerance and they're still born.

[tar]

I am thinking you are fighting contradictory enemies.

 

You want to fight John Lennon's battle and make there be no religions.

 

And you want to have me stand aside and renounce my Crusader ways and submit so that all the world will be for Allah.

 

I have thought long and hard about a lot of things things since 9/11 and one thing I am sure of. It is OK to fight when you have enemies. There is no objective truth when it comes to love and hate. You are for those things that you include in your feeling of self, and you are against those things you push out from your feeling of self.

well wait

 

if my hatred does not affect them, how do you figure your tolerance affects them?

You have been tolerant and loving from the get go, and the Shite are killing the Sunni and everybody killing US and we them, since. Regardless of your love.

Edited June 20, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

I have thought long and hard about a lot of things things since 9/11 and one thing I am sure of. It is OK to fight when you have enemies.

 

 

It’s OK to fight if you have attackers but it’s better to talk if you have enemies.

[tar]

you figure by hating me for hating them they will feel your love and get better?

OK, so exactly why do you figure our Secretary of State does not go to Raqqa, sit down with the Caliph and sort this thing out?

[dimreepr]

Don't get angry if/because I don't hate you...

Edited June 20, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

they have been "attacking" our way of life, the rule of law, our sensibilities and our principles for 4 years

after Paris they called on their followers to attack soft targets in the West, any where they could

NATO agreements say you attack one member you attack the whole alliance.

We are under attack.

I love that you don't hate me.

 

I question why you don't hate my enemies though.

[dimreepr]

I don't hate my enemies, why would I hate yours?

As I’ve explained before, hate is a barrier to understanding, whilst, tolerance is a bridge; if you can’t get there you’ll never understand what there is all about.

[StringJunky]

Hate, like romantic love, is blind to reality; we see what we want to see and not what is actually there.

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

So you have hate under control. But how do you show your disapproval, and why do you disapprove of someone's actions if there is not a way you would rather they acted?

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

 

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,

Every man is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manor of thy friend's

Or of thine own were:

Any man's death diminishes me,

Because I am involved in mankind,

And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;

It tolls for thee. – John Donne

Edited June 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

String Junky,

 

Well yes, both love and hate are blind and mute. With love, you include an entity in your feeling of self, and with hate you exclude an entity from your feeling of self. In neither case, does the entity know you have made this decision. That is why you have to show something you love it, and why you have to show something you hate it.

 

In hating the hater, you are excluding from your feeling of self, a person who is excluding something from their feeling of self.

 

This exercise is quite futile in one sense, and quite effective in another. If you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you are doing an injustice, or in most cases, your disapproval, has no effect on the wrongdoer, as they do not know or care that you have discarded them. Hating ISIS does not halt their behavior. Loving ISIS does not encourage their behavior.

 

You have to do or say something that would indicate to the loved or to the hated, that you are on their side, or against their existence.

 

For instance, take a plant. A tomato plant or rose bush, you water and tend and protect from animals and blight and foot of man. A choking weed or poison ivy on the other hand, you pull out and discard. Then there are those plants you control and use to where your hurtful actions like cutting down a tree for its lumber or firewood allows you to build a house to protect your family from the elements or cutting the weeds to allow grass to take hold...

 

But with people, there are many ways to show them if you are on their side or are their enemy. Build a dam with them, or cut off their water supply for instance.

 

Or in the case of America, pledge allegiance to her, or declare war on her.

 

To declare war on hate, you have not done a good thing. You might wind up hating a republican and tolerating an ISIS fighter.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 22, 2016 by tar

[tar]

One day at work years ago I was in one department, hearing the story of the reckless idiot that caused the accident the worker was in that morning. A little while later I was in another dept. in another building of the same company, listening to a worker telling a story of the reckless idiot that caused the accident they were in that morning. Same accident.

Edited June 22, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

String Junky,

 

Well yes, both love and hate are blind and mute. With love, you include an entity in your feeling of self, and with hate you exclude an entity from your feeling of self. In neither case, does the entity know you have made this decision. That is why you have to show something you love it, and why you have to show something you hate it.

 

In hating the hater, you are excluding from your feeling of self, a person who is excluding something from their feeling of self.

 

This exercise is quite futile in one sense, and quite effective in another. If you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you are doing an injustice, or in most cases, your disapproval, has no effect on the wrongdoer, as they do not know or care that you have discarded them. Hating ISIS does not halt their behavior. Loving ISIS does not encourage their behavior.

 

You have to do or say something that would indicate to the loved or to the hated, that you are on their side, or against their existence.

 

For instance, take a plant. A tomato plant or rose bush, you water and tend and protect from animals and blight and foot of man. A choking weed or poison ivy on the other hand, you pull out and discard. Then there are those plants you control and use to where your hurtful actions like cutting down a tree for its lumber or firewood allows you to build a house to protect your family from the elements or cutting the weeds to allow grass to take hold...

 

But with people, there are many ways to show them if you are on their side or are their enemy. Build a dam with them, or cut off their water supply for instance.

 

Or in the case of America, pledge allegiance to her, or declare war on her.

 

To declare war on hate, you have not done a good thing. You might wind up hating a republican and tolerating an ISIS fighter.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

‘tar’, this is why you will never understand the above poem; how can you hate part of you?

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

Here is the thing. There are 8 billion people in the world. 8 billion different wills, different calculus as to who is on their side and who is against them.

 

If 8 billion people would have been on my side for the last 62 years, there would be no crime, no lying, no taking advantage of others, no murder, no dominance of one person over the other.

 

I was taught to love my fellow man, follow the rules, love my country and support her. If everybody would be on the same side, as me and the queen of England, and believe in society and culture and rule of law, and tolerance and all...then the towers would not have been brought down on 9/11. I could have hoped for a closer and closer world where we watched out for each other.

 

Didn't happen that way. As a result I can not pretend I am on everybody's side, and everybody loves me and is worthy of my love. I have enemies. And if I wish to hold on to my way of life, I need to stand in the way of those that wish to take my way of life away.

 

So, in answer to your question of how you hate yourself, I will approach it from two directions, or in two senses. One if all humanity is my brother, then likewise I am theirs and I should give up a few of my rights and some of my ease, for the benefit of others and in return I should get 8 billion people giving up their rights and their ease on my behalf. But if some individuals within this brotherhood should break my rules and lie and cheat and steal and murder and fail to take care of me, and instead seek to hurt me, I should stand in their way, and let them know strongly of my disapproval.

 

Secondly, from an internal psychological viewpoint, there is such thing as self-hatred. People can hold themselves responsible for wrongdoing or for inaction and carry the guilt for a long time. Survivor remorse for example. Should have been me that died. I carry some remorse and self hatred for a time in Germany when I stood and did nothing while 5 or six Iranians burned my flag and tread on it. I think, perhaps if I would have fought them and died and created an international incident, perhaps Iranians and those like them would not be treading on us now.

 

But aside from that, I think we keep an internal balance sheet of our good actions and bad actions, where we have helped our selves and family and friends and company and town and county and state and country and world, and where we have failed to help or where we have injured.

 

Those good deeds we pat ourselves on the back for, the bad deeds we consider undisireable and seek to improve or make restitution, or sluff off and consider water under the bridge.

 

But how we feel about our self in terms of this balance sheet is not the only important consideration, we also care how our family and friends, and coworkers and club members and pastor and governer feel about our deeds. In this I early on in this thread suggested the importance of scornful looks toward others who are transgressing. And there must be an internal equivalent to a scornful look. Shaking your head at your own mistake. Hating yourself, for that transgression or mistake.

 

I think we want to be right. We are built to be right. We get reward chemicals for being right. And we likewise feel the punishment when we are wrong, so we don't do it again.

Whether imposed by ones own conscience or imposed by the look of your Mom, or the handcuffs of the police or the bullet of an enemy, there are ways we have of letting ourselves and others know the difference between right and wrong.

 

Problem is there is not an objective rulebook. You have to go by your own rules and the rules of your family and lover and company and town and club and church and the constitution of your country. If there is a disagreement in terms of right and wrong, it is OK to go with your own rules over somebody else's. Because your way of life depends on you following the rules of your group.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Regards, TAR

Edited June 22, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

Smile and the world smiles back, frown and the world turns it's back

[tar]

Perhaps, but 4 years of alternately leaving ISIS alone and bombing them has increased their ranks, and caused Americans to kill in their name.

 

And, if we should love our neighbor, we should start with our neighbors, even if they are on the other side of the aisle.

 

We should love those on the other side of the aisle, way before we should tolerate those on the other side of the law.

Edited June 22, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

No, we should understand the other side way before we judge them.

[tar]

Does Hilary understand republicans, drug companies and option traders? Does Trump understand Hilary?

I think I understand the Caliph perfectly well...just don't think he is right.

[dimreepr]

I think I understand the Caliph perfectly well...

 

 

What makes you think that?

[tar]

I read the Koran. I get the brainwashing that goes on when children are made to memorize the Koran in school. I get the feeling it must be to circle the stone with hundreds of thousands of other like minded folk, reciting verses from the Koran. I get the fact that the Caliph rules both the political and moral lives of Muslims. I get that the Sunni and the Shite have a different criteria for what line or what credentials a Caliph should come from. I get that the Sunni were driven out of power in Iraq when we came in and allowed the Shite leaders to kill and imprison Sunni leaders. Now the Sunni leadership that used to be Saddam's guard are on the side of the Caliph, using him as a figure head to establish rule.

 

I get him. I just don't agree with his 600 year old rules that disallow gays and make women chattel and completely disagree with the criminal way his generals operate, paying fighters off with a portion of what they steal, and kidnapping sex slaves for the fighters and selling wives to the fighters and such. It goes against any and all rules by which I was raised. I understand the guy, but do not agree with him.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

I read the Koran. I get the brainwashing that goes on when children are made to memorize the Koran in school. I get the feeling it must be to circle the stone with hundreds of thousands of other like minded folk, reciting verses from the Koran. I get the fact that the Caliph rules both the political and moral lives of Muslims. I get that the Sunni and the Shite have a different criteria for what line or what credentials a Caliph should come from. I get that the Sunni were driven out of power in Iraq when we came in and allowed the Shite leaders to kill and imprison Sunni leaders. Now the Sunni leadership that used to be Saddam's guard are on the side of the Caliph, using him as a figure head to establish rule.

 

I get him. I just don't agree with his 600 year old rules that disallow gays and make women chattel and completely disagree with the criminal way his generals operate, paying fighters off with a portion of what they steal, and kidnapping sex slaves for the fighters and selling wives to the fighters and such. It goes against any and all rules by which I was raised. I understand the guy, but do not agree with him.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Do you understanding what it was to be Jesus, or understand his teachings, because your a Christian?

No of course not, nor do they; so either you're brainwashed too or you're both wrong.

[tar]

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.

 

Thus, in my book, you can root for the Yankees, understanding completely what its like to be a baseball player, and understand completely what it feels like to win or to lose, be a baseball player or a fan. And that would include understanding what its like to play for Boston.

 

Today democrats sang "we shall overcome" on the steps of the Capital.

 

Overcome hate, is what they were suggesting. But they were suggesting that what they had to overcome was the Republicans. Really?

 

How is this love? Why can they not love Republicans? And if I am registered Republican are they singing to overcome me?

 

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And as soon as you stone anyone, you are stoning them. This is the bedrock of my argument and suggestion here, that hate is a human emotion, meant to show others how to be, how to act. There is great division and hatred between the two sides of the aisle these days, and one of the reasons for it, is that you put me in the positions of being a hater. And should I dislike haters, I should therefor hate myself. So when they are singing on the steps am I supposed to be singing with them or are they singing about me as that which should be overcome. I cannot be both against old white male protestant Americans AND be an old white male protestant American.

 

So I would ask, if I am to be described as a hater, that you specify what it is that you think I hate, so I can tell you if you are right or wrong about your assessment.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And as soon as you stone anyone, you are stoning them. This is the bedrock of my argument and suggestion here, that hate is a human emotion, meant to show others how to be, how to act.

 

 

Wow, I doubt anyone else could present an argument more diametrically opposed,too the truth, without a full understanding of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.

Edited June 23, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

dimreeper,

 

wow indeed

 

You have no clue what I am talking about when I accuse you of casting a stone at me.

 

Regards, TAR

When I accuse you of hating the hater. Or more appropriately suggest you hate the hater...and that is normal, because that is what scorn is about. Throwing stones at transgressors.

there really is an important difference between what you think is in my heart and what is in my heart

s

And when you talk about some narrow or possible intent in characterizing someone else's actions based on your own beliefs, it means little unless the other person holds your same values.

 

And as such, if you use Christian charity and tolerance and brotherly love as your motivation, you cannot assume that another human being is operating without having been brought up the same way with the same understanding of wrongdoing.

 

For instance take an idea like bullying and equalizing the power between the meek and the strong through societal laws.

 

Then break this into good and bad, and tell me which is more of a wrongdoing. A big fat strong kid picking on a skinny weak kid in the schoolyard, or a big strong country sending a drone to assassinate a foreign leader?

 

So our president can alternately call for common sense gun laws and sign the drone orders, and claim the moral high ground in both situations. Based on what? Based on the idea that our system and moral code is superior to the moral code being exhibited by the bully AND the ISIS leader. This is obviously not an objectively true rulebook that we go by, but one based on the moral code established by our founding fathers, and adjusted to give equal standing to blacks and women not included in the original constitutional rulebook.

 

Equal rights for other protected groups is a work in progress, with some things federal and having to do with employment in companies with federal contracts and others are different depending on the state and whether one is talking about what couples can have legal status to marry and adopt and have tax and inheritance rights and such. Not a clear cut situation where the difference between right and wrong is obvious. For instance what about a man and a boy having sex. A matter of when the younger's birthday is could make the difference between whether the jail sentence is for the older man or the person that objected to the union.

 

Regards, TAR

In any case it is difficult to call Orlando a hate crime, and indict the NRA, when the slaughter was committed by an American Muslim, with possible homosexual tendencies in the name of the Caliph. There is too much to unwind there and gun violence in the U.S. though extensive and terrible, has more to do with accident and suicide and drug wars, and armed robberies, than with hate, per se. If we are to go after gun violence we should approach drug addiction, and drug cartels and inner city drug gangs, whether Mafia or black or Mexican or oriental or irish or whatever.

Not assume that gun violence is caused only by hate.

Or more illogically assume that removing guns from law abiding citizens will somehow erase hatred and crime and accidents and ugliness. 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. But protecting the 2nd and 5th amendment is as important as protecting a commission's ruling on a supreme court ruling. There remains, based on our laws, the difference between right and wrong. And transgressors need to be scorned. That I think is what hate is for. And what is right in West Milford NJ is different from what is right in Raqqa Syria.

Edited June 24, 2016 by tar