Is Hitler innocent because he did not shove anyone into a gas chamber personally?

He ordered millions of people killed which is slightly different from posting some BS story on the Internet - as usual you are reaching.

But you go in with the absolute certainty of winning and the determination to see that the victory is claimed.

No hatred necessary.

With all due respect, Unless you are a pro fighter who trains almost every day, you are probably just fooling yourself.

There is a difference between feelings and behavior. Hate is a feeling. We may act on that feeling with a behavior or we may not.

When we talk about hateful behavior, what is usually behind it is fear.

My guess would be that in the case of the Norwegian man, he was suffering from fear--the fear of losing his way of life, his identity, his country. This caused his behavior. I doubt that he hated his fellow countrymen.

With religious groups the fear is even greater. Not only do they fear the loss of their culture and identity, but they suffer the fear of what will happen in the after life if they have not done everything to preserve in the manner that their deity has decided they should have.

When someone threatens us, we react out of fear and self preservation, whether it is ourselves or the extension of ourselves--our children. We usually don't even have time to feel anything other than fear and the fight or flight response it engenders.

Paranoia is a type of fear; irrational, but still fear.

Personally, I have hated, but I don't let myself hate any longer. It's such a negative and all consuming feeling and completely destructive, but only to me. The object of my hate goes merrily on his/her way, and I am left with insomnia, high blood pressure and ulcers.

My guess would be that in the case of the Norwegian man, he was suffering from fear--the fear of losing his way of life, his identity, his country. This caused his behavior. I doubt that he hated his fellow countrymen.

I would guess that he is just a lunatic. Nothing he did would help his "cause" in any way.

There is clearly a difference between someone who "hates" those who are not like him, and someone who "hates" those who support tyranny or injustice. In the former case, the intent is to elevate those with a similar trait to a higher social standing or position where they can subjugate and oppress those who do not meet an arbitrary definition. In the latter, the idea is to destroy all arbitrary definitions, and promote egalitarianism in opportunity among the entire human population, at least in regards to emotional characteristics which transcend human skill...things like happiness and self improvement. There is nobody who is objectively any better or more talented than anyone else in areas like this.

It seems incredibly naive to me to make the argument that these two "hates" are equivalent. One is promoting the good of a select few at the expense of everyone else, and the second is promoting the good of all.

Hating evil is not bad. It is a specious argument to try and claim that hate of evil begets evil. Evil exists apriori, and therefore hatred of it is does not cause it to come into being. The only question to ask then, is can "evil" be identified in a nonrelativistic way...one that does not rely on independent judgement of the person who hates? The answer in my opinion is yes. People and policies that follow a simple rule "treat others as you would like to be treated" are good. People and policies that intentionally try and marginalize others for personal gain are evil, and rightfully should be despised. So in some ways it comes down to the intention of the individual, but it does have boundaries that are defined outside of an individuals actions.

Ask yourself this question. If you hate someone or something, do you hate their actions because they are depriving you of something that gives you privilege, or do you despise their actions because they are trying to gain privilege for themselves at the expense of justice? These are very, very different cases. In the former, the hatred is truly evil, but in the latter, it may very well be justified and righteous. That doesn't mean everyone doing the hating is in the right mind to discern the difference, but there is a social norm that could be used to make this determination if we were so inclined.

The final comment is that this is rarely a black and white answer, but a continuous scale. Some actions are obviously substantially worse than others. Hitler was a demagogue. He deceitfully amplified underlying social discontent with the Jewish members of society to advance his own agenda. So was he completely evil then? Was there absolutely no truth to his allegations that might of mitigated what he did? I don't doubt that there was an underlying social stereotype at the time that made the ordinary Germans receptive to his message. But even if you could find a few, isolated cases that support him in his rhetoric, it is quite clear that not every Jew in Germany was equally guilty, and his intentions were never to try and correct an injustice, but instead to grab power for himself and those he deemed worthy. Any mitigating circumstances would be so minor as to be lost in the noise compared to the abject malevolence that he stood for. He is at one end of the spectrum. It is therefore a noble gesture and a mark of good moral character to hate Hitler. On the other hand, hating arabs simply because they have a religion different from your own is despicable. Then there is the vast majority of cases that exist between the two extremes, and where hatred is justified and yet destructive to varying degrees.

Hatred can be differentiated, and it is important that everyone not only recognizes this, but understands how to identify the difference.

There is clearly a difference between someone who "hates" those who are not like him, and someone who "hates" those who support tyranny or injustice. In the former case, the intent is to elevate those with a similar trait to a higher social standing or position where they can subjugate and oppress those who do not meet an arbitrary definition. In the latter, the idea is to destroy all arbitrary definitions, and promote egalitarianism in opportunity among the entire human population, at least in regards to emotional characteristics which transcend human skill...things like happiness and self improvement. There is nobody who is objectively any better or more talented than anyone else in areas like this.

It seems incredibly naive to me to make the argument that these two "hates" are equivalent. One is promoting the good of a select few at the expense of everyone else, and the second is promoting the good of all.

Hating evil is not bad. It is a specious argument to try and claim that hate of evil begets evil. Evil exists apriori, and therefore hatred of it is does not cause it to come into being. The only question to ask then, is can "evil" be identified in a nonrelativistic way...one that does not rely on independent judgement of the person who hates? The answer in my opinion is yes. People and policies that follow a simple rule "treat others as you would like to be treated" are good. People and policies that intentionally try and marginalize others for personal gain are evil, and rightfully should be despised. So in some ways it comes down to the intention of the individual, but it does have boundaries that are defined outside of an individuals actions.

Ask yourself this question. If you hate someone or something, do you hate their actions because they are depriving you of something that gives you privilege, or do you despise their actions because they are trying to gain privilege for themselves at the expense of justice? These are very, very different cases. In the former, the hatred is truly evil, but in the latter, it may very well be justified and righteous. That doesn't mean everyone doing the hating is in the right mind to discern the difference, but there is a social norm that could be used to make this determination if we were so inclined.

The final comment is that this is rarely a black and white answer, but a continuous scale. Some actions are obviously substantially worse than others. Hitler was a demagogue. He deceitfully amplified underlying social discontent with the Jewish members of society to advance his own agenda. So was he completely evil then? Was there absolutely no truth to his allegations that might of mitigated what he did? I don't doubt that there was an underlying social stereotype at the time that made the ordinary Germans receptive to his message. But even if you could find a few, isolated cases that support him in his rhetoric, it is quite clear that not every Jew in Germany was equally guilty, and his intentions were never to try and correct an injustice, but instead to grab power for himself and those he deemed worthy. Any mitigating circumstances would be so minor as to be lost in the noise compared to the abject malevolence that he stood for. He is at one end of the spectrum. It is therefore a noble gesture and a mark of good moral character to hate Hitler. On the other hand, hating arabs simply because they have a religion different from your own is despicable. Then there is the vast majority of cases that exist between the two extremes, and where hatred is justified and yet destructive to varying degrees.

Hatred can be differentiated, and it is important that everyone not only recognizes this, but understands how to identify the difference.

That evil exists is not an a priori fact. There is no empirical evidence that evil exists. It's a concept, and the degree of evilness is entirely dependant on a moral view, and since morals are a matter of opinion, evilness is a matter of opinion.

One may feel that one's hatred is righteous....because one has a particular moral standpoint.

Ali Bessum Gum's fervent pleas to his god each night as he prays that the Amerikani servants of Shaitan are smitten because their drones wiped out his innocent family are borne of hate, a hate that is righteous.

In the eyes of his commanders and many of his fellow citizens, the remote drone pilot is not evil at all, and his pressing the "fire" button was righteous.

Using your arguments above, Ali Bessum's Gum's hatred, which simply seeks to have the destroyers of his family punished, and for his community and country to no longer fear the "evil" invaders, is a good hatred.

Even when he acts upon his emotions and straps on a bomb and walks into the closest Amercan Embassy.

I thus have to say that I can not differentiate hatred....at least not without introducing a personal opinion on the moral aspects.

I feel very sorry for you.

After reading your posts for all these years, I feel exactly the same about you.

An interesting and informative discussion becomes your personal shooting range.

Why are you always so argumentative, and why do you always take my words out of context to spin them into something that you can poke at?

But you go in with the absolute certainty of winning and the determination to see that the victory is claimed.

No hatred necessary.

With all due respect, Unless you are a pro fighter who trains almost every day, you are probably just fooling yourself.

Ahhh. You took my words "I feel sorry for you" and posted them alone and out of context, yet here you are in effect replying to my same post (because HB is responding to me and that particular post)....so what you are saying to HB is actually saying to the forum that you DO think Kahn had hatred for his opponant when he beat Judah.

It is apparent that you sincerely believe that hatred is neccessary to conquer your enemy.

I feel very sorry for you.

After reading your posts for all these years, I feel exactly the same about you.

An interesting and informative discussion becomes your personal shooting range.

Why are you always so argumentative, and why do you always take my words out of context to spin them into something that you can poke at?

We both know what you meant and the context makes no difference. You are trying to twist your usual insults into being my fault somehow.

Do you really think that the mods do not know about your constant, unnecessary flaming? Almost every one of your posts has some hateful little insult towards someone and here you are trying to blame me for what you - as usual - initiated. You are tricking no one except yourself and I feel sorry for you that you do not realize it.

...here you are in effect replying to my same post (because HB is responding to me and that particular post)....so what you are saying to HB is actually saying to the forum that you DO think Kahn had hatred for his opponant when he beat Judah.

Here you are making things up again. Your mind-reading abilities do not exist, so do not bother putting words in other poster's mouths.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

Using your arguments above, Ali Bessum's Gum's hatred, which simply seeks to have the destroyers of his family punished, and for his community and country to no longer fear the "evil" invaders, is a good hatred.

Even when he acts upon his emotions and straps on a bomb and walks into the closest Amercan Embassy.

Really? Are you sure about that? I think you should read my argument again. Would Ali Bessum Gum truly think it is fair to be killed because of the actions of his government, even when he didn't support them? Is that "treating others as you would like to be treated?" I disagree with you. As I pointed out, there is some level of relativism in my distinction, but it exists only within clearly defined constraints that severely limit how far you can push that. If he was truly going after the people who killed his family, rather than someone who was only loosely associated with the person who did, I would tend to support him on that. The US government does do horrible things in the Middle East after all, and everyone is responsible for their own actions. If someone killed my children for no valid reason, I would be incensed at the injustice. Why should I assume he won't be? Hating someone who commits injustices is not bad, but you do need to correctly identify the person who supports injustice.

From my own perspective, I think much of the hatred towards America in the Middle East is justified. Just not hatred towards most Americans. There is a difference and one that can be delineated. The militants and terrorists simply aren't of the right mind in most cases to differentiate. That doesn't mean nobody in the USA bears responsibility for the havoc they have brought to the area. Hating somebody is justified. Figuring out exactly who is a more thorny issue. But if Ali Bessum Gum were to blow up Dick Cheney for example rather than low level Americans working and conducting business at an embassy, I think you would see a different level of support for him.

Evil does exist apriori. Human beings are born greedy and selfish. Watch a pair of twin babies if you don't think this is true. It takes many months of social development before they begin to accept each other. At the beginning, they will do anything they can to push the other out of the way and take all the attention for themselves. It is completely instinctive, and yet that behavior is socially destructive and needs to be drilled out of them through constant repetition about what kinds of actions are considered inappropriate.

I can understand why a blanket condemnation of all hatred would be comforting for some. Admitting that there might be times when it is justified opens the door to allowing people to rationalize their loathing, even when that loathing is evil. But the fact exists that hating injustice is a good thing, and as dangerous as that precedent of allowing it may be, it needs to be accommodated in any truly useful philosophy on human social interactions.

Using your arguments above, Ali Bessum's Gum's hatred, which simply seeks to have the destroyers of his family punished, and for his community and country to no longer fear the "evil" invaders, is a good hatred.

Even when he acts upon his emotions and straps on a bomb and walks into the closest Amercan Embassy.

Really? Are you sure about that? I think you should read my argument again. Would Ali Bessum Gum truly think it is fair to be killed because of the actions of his government, even when he didn't support them? Is that "treating others as you would like to be treated?" I disagree with you. As I pointed out, there is some level of relativism in my distinction, but it exists only within clearly defined constraints that severely limit how far you can push that. If he was truly going after the people who killed his family, rather than someone who was only loosely associated with the person who did, I would tend to support him on that. The US government does do horrible things in the Middle East after all, and everyone is responsible for their own actions. If someone killed my children for no valid reason, I would be incensed at the injustice. Why should I assume he won't be? Hating someone who commits injustices is not bad, but you do need to correctly identify the person who supports injustice.

From my own perspective, I think much of the hatred towards America in the Middle East is justified. Just not hatred towards most Americans. There is a difference and one that can be delineated. The militants and terrorists simply aren't of the right mind in most cases to differentiate. That doesn't mean nobody in the USA bears responsibility for the havoc they have brought to the area. Hating somebody is justified. Figuring out exactly who is a more thorny issue. But if Ali Bessum Gum were to blow up Dick Cheney for example rather than low level Americans working and conducting business at an embassy, I think you would see a different level of support for him.

Evil does exist apriori. Human beings are born greedy and selfish. Watch a pair of twin babies if you don't think this is true. It takes many months of social development before they begin to accept each other. At the beginning, they will do anything they can to push the other out of the way and take all the attention for themselves. It is completely instinctive, and yet that behavior is socially destructive and needs to be drilled out of them through constant repetition about what kinds of actions are considered inappropriate.

I can understand why a blanket condemnation of all hatred would be comforting for some. Admitting that there might be times when it is justified opens the door to allowing people to rationalize their loathing, even when that loathing is evil. But the fact exists that hating injustice is a good thing, and as dangerous as that precedent of allowing it may be, it needs to be accommodated in any truly useful philosophy on human social interactions.

"Evil" exists in the sense that many people percieve it. However, what actually constitutes "evil" varies...as I have argued, evilness is a matter of opinion. Personally, I do not think selfish twins are showing evilness. Lack of sociability may be evil to some, and while it is less than beneficial, it is not evil to me.

What you are now saying is that hate can be righteous (and thus good), but the way that that hate is acted upon can be bad.

I will agree that the way hate is acted upon may be bad....but really that is a seperate issue from hate in itself.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

So, have we lost chuckd and koheesti for 3 months? It has been quite pleasant here for a while. ...but then UG has surfaced again.

I ask because it would serve those of us remaining to learn well the lesson.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

So, have we lost chuckd and koheesti for 3 months? It has been quite pleasant here for a while. ...but then UG has surfaced again.

I ask because it would serve those of us remaining to learn well the lesson.

Nope. I simply got tired of the inane posts of some.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

So, have we lost chuckd and koheesti for 3 months? It has been quite pleasant here for a while. ...but then UG has surfaced again.

I ask because it would serve those of us remaining to learn well the lesson.

No, some people just learn to heed public warnings and remember to mind their manners.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

So, have we lost chuckd and koheesti for 3 months? It has been quite pleasant here for a while. ...but then UG has surfaced again.

I ask because it would serve those of us remaining to learn well the lesson.

No, some people just learn to heed public warnings and remember to mind their manners.

Instead of purposely stirring the pot.

You've been advised to be nice. I suggest you take the advice.

This bickering is getting more than tiresome in this forum and if it continues all parties involved will find their access to Bedlam restricted for no less than 3 months. I hope thats clear enough now.

So, have we lost chuckd and koheesti for 3 months? It has been quite pleasant here for a while. ...but then UG has surfaced again.

I ask because it would serve those of us remaining to learn well the lesson.

No, some people just learn to heed public warnings and remember to mind their manners.

I've been travelling a lot lately. This week I'm in Kiev and the women are some of the hottest around. So there are more interesting things to do than sit here all day replying to the baiting posts which pop up all too often. And sbk is right, it is tiresome.

This week I'm in Kiev and the women are some of the hottest around.

This week I'm in Kiev and the women are some of the hottest around.

I know.