Hate

Rick Giles's picture
Submitted by Rick Giles on Sun, 2007-07-15 05:32

What's my emotional relationship with the religious and those who subscribe to organised philosophy? Objectivists are pretty sweet, Rick-wrath-wise, but what about the rest?

Here's an option...hate:

"Death to Destiny Church!"
"Death to Scouting New Zealand!"
"Death to Shinto!"
"Death to The Salvation Army"
"Death to St Stephens Anglican Church!"
"Death to St Bedes Colledge!!"
"Death to Parnell Christian Woman's Knitting Circle (meets every second Sunday at Jubilee Hall, bring your own wool and scones)!! Yahh!"
"Death to Islam!"

That would be an easy road to follow if these 'churches' were simple monolithic constructs. It's easy to hate it when the respective followers have the integrity and follow-through of the IRA or Al-Qaeda. But the Parnell Christian Woman's Knitting Circle think they're put on this earth to "do unto others," watch 'Praise Be' on Sundays, die, go to heaven, and knit jumpers. Hate 'em?

What about the rest of the non-terrorist faithful?

I assume that they don't know that they're supposed to be killing me. They should be killing my girlfriend, my parents, my loved ones, and most of those I respect who are not dead already.

But, they don't. Perhaps they don't face up to the inherent contradictions of their philosophy of life, perhaps they haven't read The Bible enough. They just want to get on in life and have a functional cognitive platform to do that. The lunacy represented by the big religions, the survivors of years of intellectual brick-work, can serve them in that function. But, usually, it doesn't make them violent anti-freedom terrorists.

Evil? Yes! But hate them? No.

When someone like that proves to me that they really are a fundamentalist, then it's ON. When I see they really are the hateful coward their holy book teaches them to be, with the integrity of Al-Qaeda (can't fault them on that!) then it's ON. Now I hate you, now I fight you.

Until then, I'll be civil. Perhaps I can help them out of this idiot-hole they're in even. Until they cross that line, by acting, they're just exercising their right to worship- their right to free speech. And, I don't hate that.

Fair enough?


( categories: )

ad absurdum

Rick Giles's picture

upheld a doctrine that was spawning terrorists that are threatening to destroy Western Civilization, and she remained suspiciously silent about it, then should you pour on the hate? -- abso-fucking-lutely!!
Load that one on the back of your wagon too, Mr Collectivist, and make sure you hate every Christian you meet.
You're making MY point, Rick! Moderate Christians all over America voice their disgust of the KKK

Oooh, fancy side-stepping. But you wont get away with it. Back on subject, please.
I really want to know, in detail, how the Gay Slayer and the KKK get all Christian hands dirty. Produce your logical connection, sir. Surely you don't hate without reason?

As for the rest of your examples, I'm afraid you're back to monkeying around in the trees!

Right, because ecology, abortion, nationalism, communism, genetic modification etc etc don't make the news where you live? Are not issues?
No, they are issues for you too. And the people around you, some more than others, are one side of the fence or the other on these issues. So then, taint these adherents with the same blame and sin as their like, but violent, doctrined fellows.
For example, if you know somebody who is against abortion you're going to have to hate them because that's the sort of doctrine that begets a terrorist organisation. This is the logic you have presented but not explained. So, stand by its application beyond the Islam question.
Or, yield to reductio ad absurdum.

NONE of those twits are threatening my immediate existence - otherwise I WOULD be having a go at them!

Is that some new criteria you didn't mention before?

I thought your hate for the sum parent group (eg Islam, apes,..) derived from a scion thereof (Osama, Robin Williams.)

Now there's also a remoteness test for your hatred of evil?

What, you like non-immediate evil? Or just feel ambivalent toward it?

What the...??? *eyes narrow in astonishment*

Jameson's picture

You're making MY point, Rick! Moderate Christians all over America voice their disgust of the KKK - as did moderate Catholics of the IRA!

As for the rest of your examples, I'm afraid you're back to monkeying around in the trees! NONE of those twits are threatening my immediate existence - otherwise I WOULD be having a go at them! Right now my hatred is focused on a) the Muslims and their Islamic doctrine; and b) the New Zealand socialists and the Marxist/Keynesian doctrine that spawned them!

Now, get back to your knitting.

Doing God's work

Rick Giles's picture

A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God's work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.
-Hey, great news piece

Load that one on the back of your wagon too, Mr Collectivist, and make sure you hate every Christian you meet.

You have to tar everyone with this freak's brush! Just like you do the Muslims! Comes from the same doc-tar-ine, Glenn. Lot's of hating to do, old chap.

I don't have that problem.

More targets for you to hate

Rick Giles's picture

a doctrine that was spawning terrorists that are threatening to destroy Western Civilization, and she remained suspiciously silent

Christian doctrine begets the KKK and IRA

Islam doctrine begets Al-Qaeda

Ecology doctrine begets the Animal Liberation Front

Anti-abortion doctrine begets the Army of God

Nationalist doctrine begets Tamil Tigers and the Hitler's SA, or 'Brown Shirts'

Communist doctrine begets The Shining Path and Bolshevik's The Red Army

Anti-GE doctrine begets The Wild Greens

(Early apes begat homo sapien sapien, begat Osama bin Laden)

Any chance that these trunk groups, or other daughter groups from the common trunk, might not be deserving of the same hate as their terrorist contributions?

If not, better eat your Weetbix. You got alot of hating to do and we're not half done.

Do tell...

Jameson's picture

Smiling

Hey, good example Glenn. But

Rick Giles's picture

Hey, good example Glenn. But we needn't look that far back.

What terrorists??

Jameson's picture

What armies?? Surely you're not referring to the Crusades?!!

What hate you boast

Rick Giles's picture

Sure, Rick: if she ardently upheld a doctrine that was spawning terrorists

Well, it was spawning terrorists and whole national armies that threatened to destroy several civilisations along with ours.

So that's a 'yes.'

And I guess that means you'll hate just about anybody.

You'll soon run out of puff.

Rick...

Jameson's picture

Help me, Glenn... If you were in the Jubilee hall on a second Sunday, were kindly offered a brandy snap by a gentle silver-hair woman with a ball of yarn in the other hand....turn on the hate? Teach me.

Sure, Rick: if she ardently upheld a doctrine that was spawning terrorists that are threatening to destroy Western Civilization, and she remained suspiciously silent about it, then should you pour on the hate? -- abso-fucking-lutely!!

Distribution of emotion

Rick Giles's picture

Glenn,
...die, go to heaven, and knit jumpers. Hate 'em?
Rick: "Evil? Yes! But hate them? No."
What, you like evil? Or just feel ambivalent toward it?

Hell. DAmn. I'm confused now. My moral compass is turning like a top! WhatdoIdowhatdoIdo?

Help me, Glenn. Do you have relationships with family or friends or shopkeepers or townsfolk who are non-Objectivist? Who have religious faith? Do you vend hatred upon them?

If you were in the Jubilee hall on a second Sunday, were kindly offered a brandy snap by a gentle silver-hair woman with a ball of yarn in the other hand....turn on the hate?

Teach me.

Hilton,-
naming the objects of our hatred to the despicable ideologies
...or should we stick to being "ad hominem" for the sake of literary convenience?

It's not mere literary convenience, it's vital logical rigour.

With respect to R.G.I. I do oppose the Presbyterians and the Catholics. And the rest, some of which I mentioned in my post.

However, my emotional relationship with them isn't usually very involved. "Why don't you tell me what you think of me in any words you wish?" says one. "But I don't think of you," says I.
Looking forward to Glenn's version.

The "despicable ideologies" inhere in actual people, they form a fundamental part of their conception of life and, therefore, their character. To apprehend such a culprit and treat him according to his nature, far from ad hominem, is only justice. To do otherwise is to turn your back on established fact.

Now then, you've got to ask yourself, do you take a run at them with their own knitting needles or do you....do what I do?

Should we hate the idea or the man?

HWH's picture

Shouldn't we perhaps think of adopting a policy of naming the objects of our hatred to the despicable ideologies and beliefs that cause the adherents to act the way they do...or should we stick to being "ad hominem" for the sake of literary convenience?

I suggest we would be better off to target the ideas...but its not going to make for the same kind of writing..what becomes of words like "Hsiekovians"...does it become something as bland as "groupthinking"?

After watching a movie about a family desperately trying to get to Sweden to escape the bombing in Lebanon some years ago, it reminded me that children are allways innocent...until they too become tragic victims of Islamofascism and blow themselves to pieces and kill dozens of other innocents in the process.

While running the mess of a small South African border camp during the fight we had against the Communist sponsored Cubans in Angola in 1982, Special Forces one day brought in a badly mangled boy no older than 9 or so who was caught planting a landmine.

The platoon sergeant showed me a small can of tuna that was used to bribe the starving boy to plant the landmine, and when he told me how often this happened it broke my heart...yes he was guilty, but he was also a victim...on a vastly larger scale than "the wet Nurse" in Atlas Shrugged

I found this excerpt from the "Trial of C.B. Reynolds for Blasphemy" by Ingersoll which puts the relationship straight.

There was a time in Europe when the Catholic Church had power, and I want it distinctly understood with this jury, that while I am opposed to Catholicism I am not opposed to Catholics --

while I am opposed to Presbyterianism I am not opposed to Presbyterians.

I do not fight people -- I fight ideas, I fight principles, and I never go into personalities.

As I said, I do not hate Presbyterians, but Presbyterianism -- that is, I am opposed to their doctrine.

I do not hate a man that has the rheumatism -- I hate the rheumatism when it has a man.

So I attack certain principles because I think they are wrong, but I always want it understood that I have nothing against persons -- nothing against victims.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

What the fuck???

Jameson's picture

Rick: "Evil? Yes! But hate them? No."

What, you like evil? Or just feel ambivalent toward it? Fucksake, Rick, you're starting to sound like you've joined the ranks of the all-forgiving Parnell Christian Woman's Knitting Circle!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.