Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-16-2018 12:02 AM
186 online now:
DrJones*, LamarkNewAge (2 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,942 Year: 11,765/29,783 Month: 787/1,642 Week: 201/460 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9899100101102
103
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10863
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1531 of 1540 (827183)
01-19-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1529 by Stile
01-19-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
The only person who can really identify if they are deeply, truly offended by something is that person.

Of course, this is true. But if this is the basis of your argument regarding hate, then your argument is nonsense. Hate is the intent of the person delivering that 'something'. If his attempt at offense fails because nobody receives it, that does not negate the attempt.

Similarly, we might acknowledge that someone taking offense at a completely innocuous statement does not translate that statement into hatred either.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1529 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 10:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1533 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 2:47 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17569
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1532 of 1540 (827186)
01-19-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1529 by Stile
01-19-2018 10:47 AM


Re: Tension from Faith
Stile writes:

I don't think that the law saying whether or not a statement is hateful invalidates what I was saying.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what I was saying.

I don't think so. In Message 1501 you said:

Stile in Message 1501 writes:

The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.

I say this is wrong because you say "only". It isn't only such people who get to decide. Use of the word "only" is also why New Cat's Eye was wrong, because it isn't only the people hate is directed at who get to decide.

Regarding your side of the question, someone who burns a cross on a lawn isn't necessarily feeling any hate. That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites. So the cross is burned with the most noble of intentions.

The reality is that it's still a hate crime.

And no one is claiming the law can't be wrong. I'm still bitter over the Brady suspension (that last for NoNukes - )

As to whether hate is in the eye of the one who expresses it or the one who it is directed at, both are possible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1529 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 10:47 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1534 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 3:04 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1536 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 4:06 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1533 of 1540 (827188)
01-19-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1531 by NoNukes
01-19-2018 1:54 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
NoNukes writes:

Stile writes:

The only person who can really identify if they are deeply, truly offended by something is that person.


Of course, this is true. But if this is the basis of your argument regarding hate, then your argument is nonsense.

This is not the basis of my argument regarding hate.

Regarding "hate" in general, I've never attempted to make an argument.

This was my point: I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."

In the context of that point, the idea of hate-intention from the sender of the statement is irrelevant (although I agree it certainly could exist).
In the context of that point, the idea of hate-reception from others discovering the statement is the only thing relevant.
And the only people who know if others are feeling hate from the statement... are those others themselves.

Hate is the intent of the person delivering that 'something'.

I suppose that depends on your definition of what hate is.

I do not agree.

To me, hate is a feeling a person has.
That feeling can be for or about something specific, or not.
It can be in reference to something that happened to a person, or not.

I only agree that you are describing one specific way hate can exist (intention to harm others).
There are many other ways.
I was talking about one of the other ways.

Similarly, we might acknowledge that someone taking offense at a completely innocuous statement does not translate that statement into hatred either.

If we're going to get into specifics about statements containing hatred... then I agree with New Cat's Eye.
Statements (in and of themselves) cannot contain hatred. They're just words. Kinda like inanimate objects.

But, again, this depends on your definition of 'hate.'

The following uses a definition of hate regarding it as a feeling that only people/living beings can have.

People can feel hatred from reading statements (what I was talking about). But the statement in and of itself cannot "contain hate."

Therefore, someone taking offense at a completely innocuous statement certainly does translate that statement into hatred... for that person.

We can all judge whether or not we care that such a person is feeling hatred from a statement no one else feels any hatred after reading.
But regardless of what we judge... it doesn't discount the feelings that the one person is actually feeling.

Like the statement "all people should be treated equally."

Some will feel hatred reading that statement.
I don't care about such people and think they should be ignored.
This doesn't change the fact that some people certainly do feel hatred from that statement.

The statement, in and of itself, contains no hatred though, it's just a bunch of words.

Another statement: Every gay person should die.

I personally feel a lot of hatred from this statement.
I think this statement should be changed, and no actions should occur due to this statement.

The statement, in and of itself, contains no hatred though, it's just a bunch of words.
People exist who would read that statement and feel no hatred.
I think such people should be reviled and restricted.

So, what do you think?

Can a statement itself actually "contain hate?" Or is hate a feeling that only people can have?

If a statement can actually, independently, "contain hate," how do you know if it contains hate or not?

How many people have to feel hatred from a statement before everyone can tell that it "contains hate?"

10? a million? everyone?

How many people have to not feel hatred from a statement before everyone can tell that it is "innocuous?"

10? a million? everyone?

What if a million people you know feel hatred from a statement, but 10 million you don't know think it's "innocuous?"

What if everyone agrees a statement is innocuous 50 years ago, but they agree that it's full of hate today? Was the statement always full of hate and they didn't know it? Or are today's people wrong? Or can it change?

Instead of working out forced answers to such questions and getting everyone to agree with it.. I find it's easier just to accept that 'hate' is only a feeling that intelligent-enough beings have. And things like statements - just a bunch of words - cannot contain hate, only provoke such feelings in people or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1531 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 1:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1538 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2018 7:15 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1534 of 1540 (827190)
01-19-2018 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1532 by Percy
01-19-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Percy writes:

I don't think so. In Message 1501 you said:

Stile writes:

The only people who get to decide if a statement is hateful or not are those who the statement is directed towards.

I say this is wrong because you say "only". It isn't only such people who get to decide. Use of the word "only" is also why New Cat's Eye was wrong, because it isn't only the people hate is directed at who get to decide.

You are technically right, and contextually wrong.

My statement about "only" was fully in context of the point I was trying to make: I was attempting to point out the absurdity in prefacing statements with a disclaimer such as: "There is no hate in what I'm saying..."

Such a statement includes the person making the statement as well as others receiving the statement.
The intentions of the person making the statement (regardless of being done with hate or not) are irrelevant.
The only relevant feelings of hate are those receiving (or discovering) the statement.

One can say a statement contains hate... and it doesn't (because no one who observes the statement cares).
One can say a statement does not contain hate... and it does (because someone who observed the statement felt hatred from it).

We can care about the receivers, and the senders, in different ways depending on our own judgments

But, in this context, the only feelings-of-hate that actually matter are those who observe/receive the statement.

However, in the broader scope of "all hate, in anyway, in any context" you're right... my statement is incorrect.

Regarding your side of the question, someone who burns a cross on a lawn isn't necessarily feeling any hate. That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites. So the cross is burned with the most noble of intentions.

The reality is that it's still a hate crime.

Yeah, I would agree it's a hate crime.

I would also agree that it being "a hate crime" is not an indication that it contains hate.
Your included fact:

That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites.

..is what makes it hateful... they are purposefully trying to incite hate.

But burning a cross on your lawn?

I doesn't have to be hateful, and doesn't have to incite hate. Regardless of it being a hate crime because that's how the law is defined.

What if I thought my kid was possessed, and I thought the demon got into his cross?
I run it outside, burn the cross on my lawn.

No one sees me, no one ever finds evidence that it occurred, and no one ever knows it happened.
No one feels any hate from it.

Did I burn a cross on my lawn? Yes.
Was it done hatefully? No.
Did it incite hate? No.
If the law new about it would it be a hate-crime? Maybe.
Would whatever-the-law-finds, itself, make it hate-inciting or done-hatefully? No.

As to whether hate is in the eye of the one who expresses it or the one who it is directed at, both are possible.

Absolutely.
There are many kinds of hate.
But for my "only" statement, I wasn't talking about all the kinds of hate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1535 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 3:59 PM Stile has responded
 Message 1537 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2018 6:01 PM Stile has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17569
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1535 of 1540 (827193)
01-19-2018 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1534 by Stile
01-19-2018 3:04 PM


What defines something as hate?
That's a kind of long answer. Maybe we can agree that the answer is complicated since hate sent can be unreceived, and hate can be received without ever being sent, and all kinds of other possibilities. The #MeToo movement is encountering a similar confusion of possibilities, where harassment isn't always unwelcome (the point Catherine DeNeuve made), and innocent actions can be interpreted as harassment (the point underscored by what happened to Aziz Ansari, see I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1534 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 3:04 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1539 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 9:04 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7518
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 1536 of 1540 (827196)
01-19-2018 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1532 by Percy
01-19-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Percy writes:

Regarding your side of the question, someone who burns a cross on a lawn isn't necessarily feeling any hate. That's just the way they were raised, that you have to keep niggers in their place otherwise they get uppity and begin to feel they're as good as whites, and we all know that isn't good because it would upset the established order handed us by God himself, which would be bad for both blacks and whites. So the cross is burned with the most noble of intentions.

On a different level, it is almost scarier that people can believe and act in such a way without hate in their heart. When someone murders another person because of passion or hate we can somewhat understand it, even if we condemn it. However, someone who murders another person with no malice or empathy in their heart is the kind of murderer that freaks us out.

If people are intimidating others because of racism and bigotry and they are doing so without hating them, then that could say something even worse about them or the culture they were raised in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:33 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1537 of 1540 (827208)
01-19-2018 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1534 by Stile
01-19-2018 3:04 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Stile writes:

quote:
But burning a cross on your lawn?

You realize you just decided to change the scenario, yes? There was an understanding that the scenario was not you trying to destroy your own property by immolation but rather going to someone else's property without their consent in order to erect a cross and set it on fire specifically so that they can see it.

All within a context of such events happening primarily to send the message to black people that they aren't wanted.

If you're simply trying to point out that there are ways to burn a cross that aren't hateful, then point conceded. Simply remove all historical context and completely change the scenario from what was accepted previously and we'll all agree that it is practically possible to do this. Heck, there's an entire literary concept about such things known as "subversion of tropes." Mel Brooks did a lot of this...the entire point of The Producers is to make a comedy about Hitler. It can be done and it's brilliant.

But when something walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. To claim that if we pluck it, cut its feet off, remove the bill, and genetically re-engineer it with pig DNA it isn't a duck would technically be true, but isn't what was originally seen.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1534 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 3:04 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1540 by Stile, posted 01-23-2018 9:10 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10863
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1538 of 1540 (827210)
01-19-2018 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1533 by Stile
01-19-2018 2:47 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
To me, hate is a feeling a person has.

In particular, it is feeling held by the person and not whatever he hates. The subject of the hate is irrelevant.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1533 by Stile, posted 01-19-2018 2:47 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1539 of 1540 (827357)
01-23-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1535 by Percy
01-19-2018 3:59 PM


Re: What defines something as hate?
Percy writes:

Maybe we can agree that the answer is complicated since hate sent can be unreceived, and hate can be received without ever being sent, and all kinds of other possibilities.

Absolutely.

I would certainly agree that any single "general statement" about hate (even one of my own) is most likely not as all-encompassing as the originator might intend.

(the point underscored by what happened to Aziz Ansari, see I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life).

I (like to) believe that Aziz is handling this well.

But, without any facts or knowing either candidate personally, it's difficult to go on much more than what's found in the news. Which is, generally speaking for such things, woefully lacking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1535 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 3:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3223
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1540 of 1540 (827358)
01-23-2018 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1537 by Rrhain
01-19-2018 6:01 PM


Re: Tension from Faith
Rrhain writes:

There was an understanding that the scenario was not you trying to destroy your own property by immolation but rather going to someone else's property without their consent in order to erect a cross and set it on fire specifically so that they can see it.

Yes.

My point was to show that "hate" does not objectively exist within inanimate objects... or words in statements... or actions on inanimate items.

Although it cannot (and should not) be meant to lessen the amount of hate a person can feel when observing such things.

The point is that the hate is in the people involved in such things.

But when something walks, talks, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. To claim that if we pluck it, cut its feet off, remove the bill, and genetically re-engineer it with pig DNA it isn't a duck would technically be true, but isn't what was originally seen.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

But from what I can get from it... I don't think I disagree with you at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1537 by Rrhain, posted 01-19-2018 6:01 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
9899100101102
103
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018