Sort of a serious question. Not saying either is right, but it just got me thinking… Its a lot moe complicated than it seems.
It’s not really complicated at all, why do people hate murderers? Same answer. Individuals seeking to cause harm, for the sole reason of causing harm and no other, are typically held in disdain.
“Haters” comes from that idea. People who “Hate” with no other reasoning than that, to hate.
I think people are often labeled “Haters” that are not, but many are.
~Matt
Which haters?
Are you talking about Silky Johnson?
so Matt, to be a hater, you have to desire to harm people? What about people who are just socailly intollerant of some others and viewed as very closed minded? Often labeled as haters as well but just floating around in their own world.
What about people who are just socailly intollerant of some others and viewed as very closed minded?
What about people that are psychotic and think there is nothing wrong will killing someone? Just because someone is not aware or doesn’t care that they are causing harm does not change the fact that they are.
~Matt
matt, its not that cut and dried. Even if you took away the violent actions of those on the extremes, people would still hate/strongly dislike them for the fact that they hate/strongly dislike something else. For example, If homofobs assume were never violent and kept to themselves, would people still hate homofobs for hating gays? To me it is circular but interesting. I’m not advocating hate on either extreme but curious about the inconsistency. Same as woman rights groups who oppose prostitution as well as pro lifers who are in favor of the death penalty.
.
Its a lot moe complicated than it seems.
Indeed. It’s always complicated.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. Not sure if Rush would be considered a “Hater”, but certainly his choice of words, his body language and his relentless attacks, certainly bring the word, “hate” to the forefront of my thoughts.
My views on just about everything could best be described as the polar opposite of Mr Limbaugh’s. I don’t hate the man, I am sure that he has some credible and valuable things to say, but I lot of what he says runs counter, to the way almost all the people in just about every other western democracy think and feel on things, so it is I think right, to question his thoughts in the face of such massive, significant and factual information.** **What is indeed surprising to me, is that he has such a large and loyal following in the U.S. and that he has such influence. That to me is extraordinary.
If homofobs assume were never violent and kept to themselves, would people still hate homofobs for hating gays?
It’s not circular at all. If a homophobe, kept to themselves, never expressed their position you would never know they were homophobes. Thus there would be no “Haters” of the “Homophobes”. It’s only thru their expression, which in and of itself is almost always causes some level of damage, that they become know as homophobes.
There are “Haters” of homphobes because they are know homophobes, whether they out rightly express themselves or not they are causing damage…IMO. Whether that’s by raising another generation of homophobes or simply being agressively homphobic, they are causing damage.
You can apply the above to just about any “Haters of the Haters” group.
About the only time this becomes “Cuircular” is when you start discussing whether or not the “Hater” is actually causing damage.
I think we see this often in politics simply because different groups believe differently. A “Liberal” will be a “Hater of the conservative” because they see the conservative as a “Hater” because tehy believe their beliefs are causing damage. The conservative on the other hand believes their beliefs are the proper ones and believes the liberal is cauing the damage. Also potentially applied to any group I suppose as most “Haters” feel justified in their hate.
~Matt
If you want to be a good christian, then you should love even more those who hate / don’t love, because something happened to them to be like that. They need your love / care / compassion even more than others…
Of course, very few christians actually act that way 
If you want to be a good christian, then you should love even more those who hate / don’t love, because something happened to them to be like that. They need your love / care / compassion even more than others…
Francois,
This is why I have found the views of the so-called Christian-Right, somewhat odd. Indeed, one of the central beliefs of Jesus and Christianity, was to accept people as they are.
Sort of a serious question. Not saying either is right, but it just got me thinking… Its a lot moe complicated than it seems.
CUZ THEY SOME PUNK ASS BITCHES WHO GONNA BE STOMPED, THAZ WHY
YOU BE STEPPIN???
Indeed, one of the central beliefs of Jesus and Christianity, was to accept people as they are.
Accept people as they are but do not accept their behavior. Pre JC god was pretty damn vindictive and simply punished those that crossed the line, really harshly in most cases, great floods, pillar of salt yadda yadda yadda. JC ushered in the “Kindler gentler” god. However he I don’t believe he taught that christians were to accept all behaviors, simply that you should not “Throw the baby out with the bath water”. Love the person, punish the behavior.
In short, JC wouldn’t turn you into a pillar of salt, but he might torture you until you changed your ways
~Matt
If you want to be a good christian, then you should love even more those who hate / don’t love, because something happened to them to be like that. They need your love / care / compassion even more than others…
Of course, very few christians actually act that way
That’s a mighty big paint brush you are using for your illustration.
If you say so…
but I lot of what he says runs counter, to the way almost all the people in just about every other western democracy think and feel on things, so it is I think right, to question his thoughts in the face of such massive, significant and factual information. What is indeed surprising to me, is that he has such a large and loyal following in the U.S. and that he has such influence. That to me is extraordinary.
I would think that if you listened to him over a long period of time you would find he is not “Contrary to most of western nations” but aligns pretty closely to most “conservatives”, using the current political definition. He’s anti-abortion, believes in god but for the most part not a radically religious, anti -drugs, gay marriage etc etc. The part that lines up with many people and definitely a lot of Americans is that he is strongly pro self responsibility, entrepreneurial and small government. He consistently rips on both Reps and Dems and for the most part stands by his beliefs, agree or disagree with them.
Rush is an entertainer, but in a very specific nitch of “political entertainment” along the lines of the Daily Show. The Daily show leans left, not as left as Rush leans right, but still left and is less “Serious” and more humor.
Rush has a following because a lot of people believe the way he believes.
Personally I find myself completely opposed to him on anything relating to social issues, religion and even some fiscal issues. But line up with him on some, even most, fiscal issues.
That being said he is also a really good source of oddball information, although you have to “Fact check” everything because of his obvious bias.
Personally I wish the left would come out with someone that was as “Entertaining” and as well informed. I find the left often ends up with people that are even slightly worse that Hanity.
~Matt
“Even if you took away the violent actions of those on the extremes, people would still hate/strongly dislike them for the fact that they hate/strongly dislike something else. For example, If homofobs assume were never violent and kept to themselves, would people still hate homofobs for hating gays?”
You have to keep in mind that in statist societies such as our own, hate can foster not only acts of violence by individuals or private groups, but also violence and/or discrimination by the state against those who are hated. For that reason, even if someone who hates members of group X only expresses those feelings in the voting booth, they still present a threat to the welfare of group-X people.
IMO this danger would not be nearly as severe in a society based on constitutional government and individual rights, and in those circumstances people might be more inclined, when confronted with haters, just to shrug their shoulders.
Pedalsaurus, you are getting caught up in semantics.
People use words imprecisely, it is a flaw, but it is how they are, so it is best to adapt and get used to it.
Our problem with you with regard to (For example) being against gay rights, is not really that we think you hate people.
Our problem with you is also not that we all have a philosophical problem with being intolerant in general.
It is that, in the particular case of being against gay rights, we feel that is a stupid opinion, that can be held only by someone who is irrational or ignorant about how gay people are and how they affect society.
We just think you are wrong, on this particular issue (and some others I’m sure, I can’t speak to them its the only one I’ve noticed)
so Matt, to be a hater, you have to desire to harm people? What about people who are just socailly intollerant of some others and viewed as very closed minded? Often labeled as haters as well but just floating around in their own world.
Maybe the “Time Haters” could travel back in time and find the answer!
jack, that is the point. Are all people who are against gay rights “haters”? i ask as a majority of Americans are against gay rights. Are a majority of US citizens “haters” in your eyes?