Why do we "Hate" Those With Whom We Disagree?

reply to post by Binder


you dont know reality because reality is all wrong, but you can know you as real when you handle yourself alone
so mister keep the conclusions of profiting from knowing that all wrong to yourself alone, by meaning easily that everyone who claim anything is wrong and that you who can say not knwoing what is right, is the best that can happen to anyone

well no people can act right and be totally independant for taking the whole credit of that to themselves alone and experiencing the whole truth and more possessing it even
im not at all claiming knowing anything concerning you, keep it all to yourself it doesnt involve my presence at all

and about your wife that dont bite how is she like your father then, is your father a dog that dont bite, and how are you then as your mother, is your mother an agressive animal that dont talk

you proove what do you mean by not knowing anything, but jumping to the conclusion that say how knowing is that to be, i doubt anyone see knowledge in expressions like this that cannot be consistent with such personnal close claims

reply to post by imans


This is actually getting a bit interesting. I'm not attacking you. You started with a personal attack. I was pointing out that that is how disagreement escalates, and sure enough it has! You are taking my allusions too literally. No I'm not comparing my wife to an actual animal nor myself. You made that connection. My point from the beginning is that you are jumping to incorrect conclusions. I believe these conclusions are fueled by your incomplete knowledge of the english language with it's many regional diverse axioms, and western culture. Much of what you write in response is not clearly intelligible to latin linguistic logic. So you are not a native western "thinker". Stop defending a position that doesn't exist. You aren't being attacked. We're having a discussion not a pissing contest. A good debate consists of linguistic parries, and witty dodges that cause the other person to think a different way. Not just I am smart, and knowledeable, and you are brutish, and dumb because I don't like your sense of humor, and the way you referred to your wife. BTW you don't sleep with her I DO! We are a perfect match, and we are both dog lovers. I own a Great Dane, and she has a Beagle, and a red cow dog. So dog referrences to her would actually be quite complimentary. I don't believe I'm the one that is lacking in understanding here. In the west a properly worded referrence to an animal is not offensive. I am not questioning your intelligence, nor am I suggesting that you are obtuse, or of a bad nature in anyway. I am trying to spur you to think differently. Don't just assume your view is the best. I don't think you are catching the subtleties in what I am saying due to a language, and cultural barrier.
Which makes it a really fascinating case study in exactly what we are discussing on this thread. Something I said obviously pricked your sensabilities. It was not even a response to you, or about you in anyway. I was replying to Benevolent Heretic, and our seeming similarities in choices. I made a humorous admission, and you took it upon yourself to become offended, and began your statement with a personal attack against my intelligence, and then again against my character that I would refer to my spouse as an animal. To you referring to someone in such a way may very well be disrespectful, but in the cultural setting in which it was applied the statement was not. To the contrary it was actually stated in admiration of her strengths, and their complimentation to mine. The only one upset, and offended here seems to be you, and no one has wronged you in any way. If you don't want to have a lively debate then don't reply. When attacked, defense is expected, but why attack when you aren't even part of the discussion? I have given you the benefit of the doubt due to linguistic, and cultural differences, but it seems you haven't dug deep enough yet to return in kind. Your view seems a bit narrow to me, and I would like to see it broaden a bit. I appologize in advance if I seem snarky(I like that word) as BH puts it, but maybe I'll make you mad enough to think, and I really don't mind being the bad guy from your perspective because I have nothing to gain or loose, but you might by gaining a little insight, and tolerance into another's perspective, and culture. Perception is our reality, and you seem to have the wrong one about what my intentions are. You speak a lot of absolutes, but nothing in our world is absolute. We live in the grey. To relate you must be able to distinguish it in all its subtle shades, and hues. For example I am a healer/health care professional, so does that mean I would absolutely never ever cause harm to anyone, anywhere ever? I even took an oath to do no harm, but physically attack my children or wife, and I would intervene with due force. I would be remiss in a higher duty to not intervene.

reply to post by Binder


i didnt read the whole post it is all repetition anyway and the idea is clear enough

keeping willing to justify our different base here is discussing philosophical issue of genders realities, the existantialist part of it when it concerns humans beings expressions, by my nonwestern mind in weakness to know the least base of english language spirit, is the weak character that reveal you being chicken and insolent one

of course i have a western mind more then you do, those ways of means are totally of closed system that cant justify itself thoughts alone and tend to always rely on cliches of medias to take for granted what majority say to be truth

you keep repeating that i offended you when i didnt touch you in any way, it is not by making yourself a victim that you become a victim objectively when others are included in your lie
you mentionned that gender issue was interesting and i am the one that brought it out philosophically speaking, and my reply was meaning an objective perspective of what you were saying not about your wife but about the fact you were presenting genders as opposites, clarifiying how for me then it is the same and cannot be the point of humanity i meant

telling you that you are the chicken while your wife the creator, was suppose to find confirmation from you, it is what you said by meaning reversing the images of genders, and clearly could nt mean to belittle your wife when im saying that she must be then the creator in your mind

but no u came back taking it so personnally forgetting the whole gender issue to justify metaphysically, and like a crazy dog you came back to tell me that your wife bark without biting, that she is the chicken then and that is what useful for you to send her instead of you in battles while you sit back because you are the tough interfer only when the action must be settled at last, completely different story of what you started few minutes before
so i simply prooved to you easily how you are not being consistent since you said being as your mother and your wife being your father like type and that was the principal point of the justification you meant to expose about genders issues
so i was just asking how sitting without doing anything is a mother character and how acting without meaning to do anything is a father character

your sexism and racism are obvious, so you are saying about yourself being very sensitive and unable to handle a logical argumentation about general issues but meaning livings expressions and realities definitions
i wont bother again to take your posts for any justification i mean, you only mean divisions in your head as the base to what you are

and my sense of humor in what i wrote was obvious while you not at all

reply to post by imans


you cant use obvious free expression choice that i explained how my choice of english words is to freedom only, to mean justifying yourself being a western mind giving compassion to oriental one
you are crazy, im the western mind living my whole life in europ and you are a village church mind, that cant but bring his walls and bed at any conversation meaning objective reality

east and west are never suppose to argue or agree, it is the truth from up that would make the reality of both being one, there is no effort to do worldwide dimension at all, and it is starting since issues are starting to be the same

it is very easy to be just human real all one has to be is intelligence appreciator, the basic evidence of what is and what is more or not

reply to post by imans


Well... if you're going to be closed minded, and dimissive then we're done. I have no interest in feeding the troll while you continue to make false suppositions, and unfounded personal attacks instead of having an intelligent debate.

Sorry for leading your otherwise great post down a rabbit trail Benevolent Heretic.

please BH note how he keeps bringing a new beast alive in words and claim that i accuse him to be he and his wife animals

now you must take the image of rabbit hole as something in the sky belonging to high transcendantal intelligence freedom, to reply to it without ever mentionning that his words are simply about zoo life, otherwise he would be offended of what you might suggest metaphorically speaking that he is in deep hole down, so he is has the rights on metaphors as jokes you should only reply haha it is just an animal with a cigar like gremlins happy to use words as a way of speech
like he said that they love dogs a lot, and when you reply in a way of saying that dog is an animal he get rebellious, the wife barke but dog is not an animal anymore, because the metaphor made all the dogs humans

im not sure if you are suppose to say haha even, like now this rabbit hole im sure he means that his words brought the topic to very deep level, he actually like live the zoo in his head as very high intelligence reality space, he believes the image inspiration for what surely he is too proud of himself

i know i am mean but it is in the topic, so tell me what do you think why should we stop hating each others, obviously he hates me and me too, is it negative influence on you as third party, or what do you sense there, do you feel more yourself or less when you see the disagreements of others out openly in their expressions replies

i think it is positive for everyone to say what you think and exercise so, what is your opinion honestly? i know it is insolent what i am trying but tell me why not, what is it to loose what harm do you see there

but to answer your question, it is all ego issue as you suspect it is

the problem is in that existence condition is based on selves superiority and not on objective superiority as the reason of present reality

that is why all systems are based on hierarchy definitions of plus and minus levels, while in truth there is nothing but positive levels dimensions

truth is the present, how by the concept of absolute life of what is definitely positive

so it start always from objective positive and then the mean is to proove how that objective positive is in the whole ground same, and that justification is the sense of freedom realisation above positive truth

so in a sense the true living superior is the free awareness but the free is also nothing awarenss which negate fundamentally any positive present, and that is how absolute truth proove itself being all

when the sense of equality is absolutely proven on a ground, equality in positive value, then that fact is translated by positive true life, which is equality again that mean objective positive in form absolute seen

so it says how objective superiority is always positive present as truth, and the concept of superior dont exist in truth and that is how superior is nothing freedom, so it still objective truth win

because of the principle saying that objective perspective say also existing perceiver same, which is reality but it cant be reality without being the whole reality of whatever it is present there of, since it started by meaning objective perspective and not subjective one

from what i think right is, is the understanding of those absolute concept being the bases of everyone freeedom truth reality and lives

once this is understood and awareness verify being on objective positive absolute base existing, then thre is another dimension of being that i see in free life

those principles belong to absolute base of any existence fact, since we exist of course we dont have to be that way it is silly we are already from that way, we have to innovate our free life sense but from that absolute base we should always verify present before any thought or will

Originally posted by Duzey Perhaps it's the manner in which I convey those beliefs to them that causes them to to dislike me and not the actual opinion.

I absolutely see this as a huge part of the issue. Why do we even feel the need to convince others of our own beliefs?

I have no problem discussing facts, arguing relevance and underscoring the main points of an issue but I typically don't venture into the realm of belief.

Beliefs are someone's personal interpretation of the "facts" as it pertains to their experience and world view. A lot more goes into forming their belief than just the pertinent facts of the topic being discussed or debated. It's intensely personal, sometimes involves magical thinking and, when you question that, it's all too often internalized as judging them personally.

I come from a very politically active family and at Christmas I was unfortunately drawn into a debate about Obama, health-care etc., etc., ad nausea um. Now typically I would not engage in this sort of pointless roundabout with a loved one but this particular imbibed uncle was spoiling for a fight.

Of course it ended badly from his perspective because he took it very personally that someone for whom he has high regard and has never argued with could have such differing ideology as him and - worse yet for him - their opinion could not be changed or shouted down. He was apoplectic. I wasn't. The difference is that I am comfortable associating with people who have differing ideas and opinions, he isn't. His opinions didn't lessen my affection or respect for him. I can't say he extended the same generosity of spirit to me.

He surrounds himself mostly with people who parrot his own talking points. Having a loved one step so far off the reservation, so to speak, was just too much. I think he found it threatening and it caused him to question his assessment of issues as well as the cohesiveness and like-mindedness of his family circle.

Can't wait til Thanksgiving...

reply to post by kosmicjack


That's very hard to deal with. A similar situation happened with a very good friend of mine who was visiting, but we were able to agree to disagree in the end and no harm was done to the relationship. He eventually changed his mind as he learned more, but it was tough to go go through that.

I agree with you. Facts can be argued, but our beliefs are our right.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes our personal beliefs really are our right. Beliefs aren't changed by someone harping on them. They are our guidlines on the most intimate level. If they are misguided the results will steer us straight most the time without some thought cops telling us what to think. Beliefs are probably the most important decisions to own.
I actually try to seek out people who believe differently than myself, and look at what about there different approach works for them. Just because it works for them doesn't mean it works for me though. I like to see how it works anyway. I think people who only surround themselves with like minded associations are not interested in growing personally, or spiritually. They closed their minds already. I heard a saying once that rings true. Maybe someone here can remember the source, I'm sure I'm paraphrasing. Weak minds talk about people, strong minds talk about events, and great minds talk about concepts, and solutions.

I've learned to stop allowing people to judge me into my own grave. So I have my ideas, my truth. There really isn't any point in discussing it with others, unless it's for the joy of discussion.

The joy of discussion is lacking here on ats. This is just one big spanish inquisition, where new ideas and experiences are killed with burden of proof that can not be manifested in the 3rd reality in a magical enough way to convince others.

Not to mention the constant arguing and insults, self righteousness that looms around every thread. And NO, I'm not talking about the "I am" movement...I'm talking about those who don't seek their own answers, instead they rest on the shoulders of the findings of others and judge their validity. All of you, need to give each other a little more understanding.

Maybe then we might learn something for once.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Visitor2012]

reply to post by Visitor2012


My thoughts exactly, there's too much '' Well you're just a stupid idiot, so much for denying ignorance '' and '' Well, I don't have to listen to people like you ''.

Isn't that the whole point of discussion and debate ? Exchanging ideas, and taking into account/being open-minded about other people's opinions ?

Originally posted by Visitor2012
The joy of discussion is lacking here on ats.

That's exactly the reason I posted this thread. I come here to have intelligent discussions and to agree AND disagree with people without it being a big emotional knock-down.

I have NO problem disagreeing with people and walking away with a smile on my face. I think that's the way it should be.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Visitor2012
The joy of discussion is lacking here on ats.

That's exactly the reason I posted this thread. I come here to have intelligent discussions and to agree AND disagree with people without it being a big emotional knock-down.

I have NO problem disagreeing with people and walking away with a smile on my face. I think that's the way it should be.

So do I, BH, so do I, but some people just cannot allow someone to have their opinion.

Those people are tyrant's, plain and simple.

Which is why I enjoy our friendship as much as I do.

No matter what, neither of us push ourselves upon each other.

We agree, disagree, or agree to disagree, and share our ideas.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

There's an art to agreeing to disagree. Especially when it's a freind, or family member (not always the same thing...).

I've had instances of disagreements over issues that lead to a friendship dissolving...long ago as it happens... It was over John Anderson, of all people, when he ran as an independent in 1980. Don't even remember how the fight started...but to this day we don't speak...thirty years. How stupid is that? Someday I'll try to bury the hatchet.

Fortunately, as I've gotten older, I've learned to see the signs both in myself and others that tell me it's time to agree to disagree and move on to something less stressing...

I've come to realize that friendship is much more important than being right.

I know what your saying. Some people can hate you just for the fact that your unlike them. I can take a guess though and say that it's like your comfortable with your choice on something like music for example. You like a certain group but hate someone with different taste because You can sort of feel threatened when someone has a different view.

reply to post by kiljon


not only that and i guess this is the most fundamental issue, when there is an honest point you are playing it real as being living point, positive truth is always there so it cant be dramatic

but the issue is freedom of truth reality knowledge by meaning to lie so you profit from both sides, the knowledge you can grasp a pretense over reality, and free sense of living out where you can create a reality to yourself alone from

the problem is what you dont believe that god abuses are catastrophic in all regards and terms, and you keep insisting that negative and positive are equal so he can teach how to be small satanists everywhere

i have a couple of friends who are religious, believe in god and go to church regularly...i am not religious, dont believe in god and have never been to church in my life but i like these people.

Because we conceptualize arguments as war. (Lakoff)

I destroyed his position.
He fired back after I made my point.
She attacked every thing I said.
etc.