(May 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm)Saerules Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:No. It can be medicinal. It 'can' be good for you. Lot's of things have the potential to harm you, that doesn't make them 'bad'.

True... just about anything 'can' be good for you. Why should love be considered necessarily good, when just about anything 'can' be bad?

I'm banking on love being all good. I'm sure that's right. So far I don't think you've disproved this.

(May 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm)Saerules Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Because you'd have to redefine love, or add in conditionals like excess or obsession which when added to love, make for something undesirable.

Why would you have to do that? I wasn't away that part of love's definition was that it is necessarily not negative

Show me then

(May 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm)Saerules Wrote:

Quote:Methinks you mix up the two. Anger mishandled can lead to excess. Again we're having to add a qualifier. The saying : "Don't go sleep on your anger" illustrates the potential for anger to turn into what is really bad : hatred.

'mishandled'?

(1) Anger alone can lead to murder... or it can inspire (to murder)... (2) or it can explode your coronary (and murder you). (3) How are you defining anger and hatred here? We apparently have much different definitions for the two

1. Murder being the unlawful taking of life. Again... anger taken further = not anger.
2. Old people die on the loo from mild exertion.
3. Anger = justified, controlled rage, appropriate negative reaction; Hatred = harboured resentment, obstinate dislike ...a position from clouded logic.

fr0d0 Wrote:I'm banking on love being all good. I'm sure that's right. So far I don't think you've disproved this.

Sure can: Mafia wife.

We done yet? ^_<

Quote:Show me then

Stockholm syndrome, loving someone who physically abuses you, too much love for the rabid dog to shoot it: this love stuff can be bad.

Quote:1. Murder being the unlawful taking of life. Again... anger taken further = not anger.

I did not say anger was murder... only that it can lead to murder (twas also a joke, you'll understand). Plans to murder someone aren't murder either... they do, however, sometimes lead to murder I don't mean to suppose that anger is always bad: only that it can be.

Quote:2. Old people die on the loo from mild exertion.

Exertion: BAD!

Quote:3. Anger = justified, controlled rage, appropriate negative reaction; Hatred = harboured resentment, obstinate dislike ...a position from clouded logic.

Weird... I define hatred only as intense dislike... anger often being the emotion by which it is expressed. Why does resentment have to be harbored for it to be hatred? Cannot hate be a short feeling? Why do you assume anger to be justified, controlled, or appropriate? Is it necessarily 'negative'?

(May 26, 2010 at 9:16 am)tackattack Wrote: guilt would be a great other thread.. but we'll stick to hate for now.. So fogiveness is the key to purging hate is what you're saying?

Forgiveness is an excellent way to purge hatred caused by personal injury. This is not a religious notion for me, but a sound psychological principle. There's a lot of information around.

If one hates through bigotry,the basis is ignorance based fear. Familiarity and education will help purge that hatred..

Altzheimers and other forms of senile dementia are probably the most effective. Of course they also tend to purge everything else.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:The psychology of unforgiveness and forgiveness and implications for clinical practice.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLand...-13729-001

Quote:Empathy, Selfism, and Coping as Elements of the Psychology of Forgiveness: A Preliminary Study

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst...5007106040



http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&l...s.&f=false

@padriac- nor did I intend this to be religious in nature at all.

(May 26, 2010 at 8:51 pm)Saerules Wrote: I don't mean to suppose that anger is always bad: only that it can be.

I'm done beating you with this particular stick. Look > *throws stick away*

(May 26, 2010 at 8:51 pm)Saerules Wrote: Exertion: BAD!

lol

(May 26, 2010 at 8:51 pm)Saerules Wrote: Weird... I define hatred only as intense dislike... anger often being the emotion by which it is expressed. Why does resentment have to be harbored for it to be hatred? Cannot hate be a short feeling? Why do you assume anger to be justified, controlled, or appropriate? Is it necessarily 'negative'?

Yeah I know the usage. That's using the word out of context IMO. You don't mean hate you just use the word to intensify your expression of dislike. It's bad english.

No I think anger is positive.

fr0d0 Wrote:I'm done beating you with this particular stick. Look > *throws stick away*

But what if I enjoy being beaten with the stick?!

*Fetches stick*

Quote:Yeah I know the usage. That's using the word out of context IMO. You don't mean hate you just use the word to intensify your expression of dislike. It's bad english.

No I think anger is positive.

Maybe it is bad english... but this language is so messed up: tis hard to know precisely what is bad english ^_< Did nobody like my examples how 'love' and 'hate' differ from 'like' and 'dislike' earlier?

I understand you think anger is positive... what I'm confused about is 'why'

I mean seriously: why do they tell me the moon is not made of green cheese... yet I have been to the moon and eaten the moldy surface cheese with the moon mice. Either someone is lying to me... or they've never been to the moon, and don't know that it is made of green cheese. It must be a conspiracy!

(May 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm)Saerules Wrote:

Paul Wrote:We aren't talking about that hypothetical society. We are talking about our society. In our society, racist extremism is frowned upon, to say the least. You are creating arguments out of thin air by taking words and phrases and changing their context. It really does nothing to further the discussion. In fact, it clouds and derails and avoids the discussion.

Nor am I talking about a hypothetical society. In fact, there are some societies that outright shun technology... such as a number of Alaskan 'native's. "Our" society is a confused construct too... there are many societies to which I belong... and they are not necessarily the ones to which you belong. (And so on.)

Heheh! Okay Sae. If you say so, who am I to argue? All I was saying is that when someone makes a statement and you know perfectly well what was meant by that statement - what the point they were making is - it is nothing more than word games to take that statement, expand the definitions of certain words, alter the context of the statement, and then make an entirely unrelated (to the original point) statement in return. That is not a valid method of countering a point, in my opinion.

Of course... that would depend on my definition of 'valid'... and what I mean by 'definition'. Heheh!

(May 27, 2010 at 4:15 am)Saerules Wrote: I understand you think anger is positive... what I'm confused about is 'why'

Because it's a straightforward emotion. Like happy, sad, miserable, ecstatic... the things you mentioned may follow from those emotions, but the emotions themselves aren't bad. They're just what we feel.

Anger is a motivator. You don't usually sit back and do nothing if you're angry. Action = positive force. Which can end up destructive, but the force is positive.

*please can I go now?*

(May 27, 2010 at 12:14 am)tackattack Wrote: @padriac- nor did I intend this to be religious in nature at all.

Tacky I wasn't sure given your basic world view.

I guess the answer to your question is 'yes and no'

I also see hatred as survival tool; to hate an enemy who wants to kill you enables you to kill him first. (?)

BUT I have huge problems with the vilification entire groups as a means to an end.EG the invented 'war on terror' in which Muslims have been deliberately and cynically turned into the bogeyman de jure for unstated political and economic goals. EG A permanent US military presence in the Middle East which will make it far easier to protcet and control crucial oil supplies as shortages grow acute,as they WILL within a few decades.

But does that really require hatred... I don't believe it does. I would defend my family with my life, but It wouldn't stem from a hatred toward the other person. You can feel threatened and your natural defensive responce would just be a response with no emotional attachment whatsoever.
Let's try a scenario. Guy comes to rob me and my family, threatens the death of my wife and kids. I instantly react out of a percieved threat to key aspects of my life. I then defend my family with violence to protect them, no thought or emotion involved. After, I have guilt over taking a life, but not for hating that person.

If on the other hand a kidnapper stole my family and held them ransom upon threat of death, I'd still feel that initial reaction to a loss, but over the course of an hour or so could easily see myself thinking of different ways to torture this person out of hate. After, I have a tremendous sense of guilt (or righteousness.. another topic) due mostly in part because of the amount of hatred I had in killing them.

I think I can best describe hate as fruits out of the seeds of fear. If we dwell in that fear (voluntary or not) that breeds resentment who's fruit is hate. I guess then the question would be is the earlier "stages" of hate stopable or reversible? That's my major problem with the war on terror as well. People who live in fear of suicide bombers blowing up the wendy's they're eating at are the same type who regularly practice intolerance, bigotry and hatred of other cultures. I'm not saying that some threats aren't real, but the percieved reality of a threat and living in fear is so easily manipulated in today's society it sickens me sometimes.