Poll of the Day > "Maybe it's not to late to learn how to love and forget how to hate"

(+) Yeah! (+)

- The Prince of Darkness
---

GanonsSpirit posted...

"Maybe it's not to late to learn how to love and forget how to hate"

Too.
---

Taily_Po posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

"Maybe it's not to late to learn how to love and forget how to hate"

Too.

no
---

Blighboy posted...

Taily_Po posted...

GanonsSpirit posted...

"Maybe it's not to late to learn how to love and forget how to hate"

Too.

no

Oops. Highlighted the wrong. Fixed.
---

To be fair, he did say that in a song where he was singing about being insane, and suffering from mental wounds that will not heal.


---

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.
---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.

Don't blame America, blame Christianity. Slavery is condoned in the bible.
---

kind9 posted...

Don't blame America, blame Christianity. Slavery is condoned in the bible.

Which also stipulates that you're supposed to set slaves free after 7 years and treat them well, two things the Americans of old never did.

So yes, it very much is an American thing - other predominantly Christian nations (along with much of the non-Christian world) had mostly already outlawed slavery or were rapidly headed that way at the time America decided to start it up. The US was very much a "late bloomer" in that regard.
---

BUMPED2002 posted...

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.

religions caused more deaths than anything
---

darkknight109 posted...

treat them well

I'm not well versed in the bible, but as far as I know it allows beating your slaves half to death without punishment.

darkknight109 posted...

The US was very much a "late bloomer" in that regard.

Exactly, and to this day we still have an overabundance of Christianity. It's a real problem and I'd say part of the reason we're a laughing stock to the rest of the western world.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

BUMPED2002 posted...

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.

religions caused more deaths than anything

I'm sure diseases and "old age" would disagree

Krazy_Kirby posted...

BUMPED2002 posted...

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.

religions caused more deaths than anything

...

PHAHAHAHAHAHA! No. Not by a looooooooong shot. Especially since you have no way to prove or verify such a statement or weight it against the number of lives improved.

Let me break it to you. Hatred has been part of humanity since the beginning, it's was almost certainly part of whatever species preceded humanity, it will proceed to be part of humanity, and nothing will ever change all that. It's also incredibly important to remember that things we see as acceptable, good, normal, or anything else simply were not, have not, and will not be the same in any other time. You go back in time and you'll find plenty of people who didn't harbor an ounce of ill-will towards a race doing things we'd consider racist today. Likewise, go into the future even a decade and you'll find people upset that we thought and did things they consider amoral while debating morality we'd never even think about. Thinking humanity can be some peaceful, loving, species once we get rid of the evil racist and hateful people with old and outdated beliefs is a dream that will never exist. Especially since you will, one day, be the 'ist' and hateful old person with outdated beliefs.

Edit: For the record, if you want a real candidate for 'killed more people than anything' you should be looking at disease, politics, and classism/communism. Even that's impossible to verify simply because there's no way to truly notorize or quantify such things.
---

I agree that morality is fluid and not absolute, which is opposite to what the bible preaches. I think hatred and intolerance exists because ideologies that divide us exist. So we should at least strive to eliminate or minimize the influence of those ideologies.
---

kind9 posted...

I agree that morality is fluid and not absolute, which is opposite to what the bible preaches. I think hatred and intolerance exists because ideologies that divide us exist. So we should at least strive to eliminate or minimize the influence of those ideologies.

Two of the greatest mass murderers in history became so prolific via killing their own people. People who shared an ideology. Ghengis Khan is regarded as one of the most violent and destructive people in history and he was actually pretty accepting of other ideologies. Many wars are motivated by things that have no bearing upon ideology. To think that simply getting everyone to believe the same thing would result in unity is about as sensible as believing that getting everyone to eat the same thing would cause it. While it is true that things such as religion have been a cause for war in the past this can be said for many, many, things. Heck, one war was fought over a stool and America and Canada almost ended up in a war because of a pig once.

Intolerance exists because of how humans think. It is extremely easy to form an in-group and out-group bias. Think back to the console wars. There is no reason why someone couldn't have both a Nintendo or Sega console and there was absolutely no reason for it to end up being divisive. Yet hatred and feuds filled the air simply over if you owned Nintendo or Sega. How many Nerds hate Jocks or Jocks hate Nerds simply because that's what they were told to do? How many people do you hate just because they're friends with someone you hate despite that you've never even spoken to them? Your ideology doesn't matter. They are the other. They are not part of the group. Therefore you will hate them even if the only difference between you is that one group likes Kirk and the other Picard.
---

kind9 posted...

BUMPED2002 posted...

Hate is in America's DNA and that goes back to the Colonies and the Black codes which were a set of law used to divide the races.

Don't blame America, blame Christianity. Slavery is condoned in the bible.

Don't blame either - the real problem is humanity.

Europeans were incredibly shitty to each other (and to others), but so were Asians, Africans, and even Native Americans long before Europeans found them.

Like it or not, violence, oppression, conquest, and a willingness to see others as lesser (thus justifying enslaving or killing them) has been part of the human psyche since the dawn of the species as we know it. The moment there was something worth fighting for, we immediate started fighting over it.

The problems with religion only really exist because humans invented it, and humans basically ruin everything we touch.



Krazy_Kirby posted...

religions caused more deaths than anything

Not even close.

Doubly so when you realize that a hell of a lot of deaths blamed on religion had almost nothing to do with it. Like the Crusades - as much as religion was used as the professed motivation, for most of the people actually fighting in them, material wealth and political power were far more significant motivations than faith. In the same vein, the Inquisition was usually more concerned with politics, economic disparity, and a desire to redistribute wealth (and they never killed as many people as most people think they did anyway). Religion was the excuse, but it was never really the cause.

(Also, no matter what a hysterical Wiccan might tell you, there was no such thing as "The Burning Times")

Counterbalance that against things like disease (especially things like the Black Plague, which wiped out more than half the population of Europe - twice - or the smallpox outbreak in the Americas that killed off something like 90% of the native population, and paved the way for European conquest) and the massive death tolls of WWI and WWII, along with other wars of conquest throughout history, and religion has probably killed comparatively fewer people than any number of other things.

And regardless of what edgy teens may believe, religion HAS provided a number of positive contributions to human history (a large part of why it exists in the first place), so that complicates matters even more. Whether you want to accept the idea, religion, like most social constructs humans have created, is a blurry mess of both positives and negatives, and probably did as much good as it did harm throughout history.

And even if everyone turned atheist tomorrow, people would still be incredibly shitty to each other on a regular basis. Because that's who we are.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

There is no reason why someone couldn't have both a Nintendo or Sega console and there was absolutely no reason for it to end up being divisive.

There actually IS logic behind that.

Consoles were/are expensive. Most kids can't afford every console in a given generation, and will only own whichever one their parents buy for them. Suddenly, you own one and not the other, and you feel like you need to justify your choice (even if you're not the one who made that choice). So psychologically, you're more inclined to overpraise the console you own, and from there it's only a short jump to bashing the other console (especially if some of your friends own one and some own the other).

The irrationality of it can be seen in precisely WHICH console is seen as being better, which in any given subset tends to correlate to which one is more popular. Jumping back to the SNES/Genesis era, in regions where the Genesis sold better than the SNES, people tended to see the Genesis as being the better console because it was more "mature" or had slightly better graphics (and blood in Mortal Kombat), and shitting on anyone with the "kiddy" console. Conversely, in places where more people bought the SNES, the SNES was seen as the inherently better console because it had a much wider selection of games (including some all-time classics), and people who owned the Genesis were seen as being "lame".

Where I grew up, almost everyone owned a SNES, and the one kid whose parents bought him a Genesis used to be defensive about it ("I didn't pick it!"). He also got picked on for being "poor" (as if his parents only bought it because it was the cheaper console), in spite of the fact that I don't think the price of the two was appreciably different at the time (but again, it's not like insults have to be logical or rational). I was actually surprised once I grew up and heard other people's opinions on the Internet, and learned there were actually places where people grew up thinking the Genesis was better.

Humans tend to define their sense of identity by external things - what we own, what our jobs are, what music we listen to, what TV shows we like, what video games we play, what sports teams we root for or what countries we're from. Listen to how people introduce and describe themselves (and how they introduce and describe other people), and it tells you a great deal about how we prioritize value and form our self-perception. And once other people start to define themselves differently than we do, we're suddenly forced to question our entire perception of reality - and we don't like doing that.

What's that? You don't like this thing that I like? That's almost a personal attack on me, dismissing my self-worth! Now I hate you, and will go out of my way to shit on your opinions in future, to help re-validate my own.
---

@Unbridled9
So conflicting ideologies may not be the source of hatred and intolerance, but they are most definitely a cause. Especially theistic, dogmatic religions that literally state, "this is the way and all others are false."

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Don't blame either - the real problem is humanity.

Europeans were incredibly shitty to each other (and to others), but so were Asians, Africans, and even Native Americans long before Europeans found them.

Like it or not, violence, oppression, conquest, and a willingness to see others as lesser (thus justifying enslaving or killing them) has been part of the human psyche since the dawn of the species as we know it. The moment there was something worth fighting for, we immediate started fighting over it.

The problems with religion only really exist because humans invented it, and humans basically ruin everything we touch.

It goes way farther back to our stone age ancestors who worshiped nature and the shamans who profited from these superstitions by claiming to have direct communication with nature spirits. Similar to modern day priests who claim to have the one interpretation of God's word(or more like priests during the dark ages who were the only ones who could interpret the bible). This way of thinking is ingrained in our brains, but I don't think we need to capitulate to that fact.
---

kind9 posted...

So conflicting ideologies may not be the source of hatred and intolerance, but they are most definitely a cause. Especially theistic, dogmatic religions that literally state, "this is the way and all others are false."

Numbers don't gel with your argument.

Taking a look at the two largest religions,there's about 2.2 billion Christians in the world and 1.8 billion Muslims. Collectively they make up over half the world's population. If even a tenth of those people were the dogmatic, "I will literally kill you for not believing what I do" sort that you're claiming religion fosters they would constitute an army greater than any that has ever been assembled in the history of the world and their resultant wars with one another, and with the rest of the planet, would put both World Wars to shame in terms of impact and death tolls.

PO said it best - religions, historically, were an excuse for a lot of conflicts, but they've seldom been the cause. Had religion never been a thing, the wars still would have happened, just for a different reason.
---

kind9 posted...

It goes way farther back to our stone age ancestors who worshiped nature and the shamans who profited from these superstitions by claiming to have direct communication with nature spirits

If you don't actually know anything significant about what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't attempt to use it in an argument.

I'm willing to bet you know literally nothing about prehistorical social structures and interaction other than what you've read in fiction or what other people have told you in passing.


---

darkknight109 posted...

kind9 posted...

So conflicting ideologies may not be the source of hatred and intolerance, but they are most definitely a cause. Especially theistic, dogmatic religions that literally state, "this is the way and all others are false."

Numbers don't gel with your argument.

Taking a look at the two largest religions,there's about 2.2 billion Christians in the world and 1.8 billion Muslims. Collectively they make up over half the world's population. If even a tenth of those people were the dogmatic, "I will literally kill you for not believing what I do" sort that you're claiming religion fosters they would constitute an army greater than any that has ever been assembled in the history of the world and their resultant wars with one another, and with the rest of the planet, would put both World Wars to shame in terms of impact and death tolls.

PO said it best - religions, historically, were an excuse for a lot of conflicts, but they've seldom been the cause. Had religion never been a thing, the wars still would have happened, just for a different reason.

I don't know what you think my argument is, but you read way too much into my two short sentences. For one we constantly see religious extremism and conflicts happening today. And my argument is that religion leads to hatred and intolerance and superstitious thinking stifles critical thinking.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

kind9 posted...

It goes way farther back to our stone age ancestors who worshiped nature and the shamans who profited from these superstitions by claiming to have direct communication with nature spirits

If you don't actually know anything significant about what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't attempt to use it in an argument.

I'm willing to bet you know literally nothing about prehistorical social structures and interaction other than what you've read in fiction or what other people have told you in passing.

Why so hostile suddenly? Here I thought this was a peaceful discussion and out of nowhere you throw an ad hom at me. Pray tell, what did I get wrong?

For the record our knowledge of prehistoric humans is largely based on observing modern tribes, but what I said is believed to be the case.

Edit: Also for the record, 1) Yes I do have a surface knowledge of all of this, 2) I'll be happy to admit when I'm wrong because I don't like being wrong, and 3) I don't even think I was contradicting you, I just added on to what you said. So I'm a little baffled by your reply.
---

So conflicting ideologies may not be the source of hatred and intolerance, but they are most definitely a cause. Especially theistic, dogmatic religions that literally state, "this is the way and all others are false."

Not really. As PO stated; while they may have been used as an excuse they were rarely the cause. Nobunaga Oda didn't attack the Ikko Ikki because they believed different, he attacked for various strategic reasons. This is not to say that religions haven't been a cause for war of course, but even when it is you usually see a larger culture and religion trying to displace or oppress a smaller culture and religion and said smaller culture/religion resorting to violence to survive.

Once again, this is not to say that religion has never been used for war. The Flower Wars and the invasions of the Hittites (at least I think. I know one of those really old cultures did it but I can't remember which one) were religiously motivated, for example, but even then those tended to be an exception as opposed to the rule.

Shockingly people don't like fighting and potentially dying just because someone believes differently. It makes far more sense to try and get along in peace and engage in things like trade than it does to try and declare a war simply because someone believes different. Even if you're ruled by another religion it makes sense to try and live a peaceful life so long as said rulers don't try to oppress you and, odds are, they won't because it's surprisingly hard to actually oppress a religion. In fact the most major religious oppressors tend to be atheistic, communist, governments (see the CCP, USSR, North Korea, and so-forth). And it makes sense too since said governments and ideologies often demand complete loyalty to the state and even the most benign and peaceful religion represents deviation from that demand.
---

darkknight109 posted...

kind9 posted...

Don't blame America, blame Christianity. Slavery is condoned in the bible.

Which also stipulates that you're supposed to set slaves free after 7 years and treat them well, two things the Americans of old never did.

So yes, it very much is an American thing - other predominantly Christian nations (along with much of the non-Christian world) had mostly already outlawed slavery or were rapidly headed that way at the time America decided to start it up. The US was very much a "late bloomer" in that regard.

It's worth noting that at least some historians have argued that the American Revolution was carried out largely to preserve the institution of slavery.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2009/6/9/740365/-

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/books/review/04staples.html

That said, slavery wasn't finally outlawed across British colonies until 1834, fewer than 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. While I haven't extensively researched a timeline, I kinda expect that America and the UK were having similar debates around the same time... then again, even the founding fathers who criticized slavery were often slaveholders themselves (including Alexander Hamilton, who also bought and sold slaves on behalf of relatives).

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/10/correcting-hamilton/
---

So you children of the world, listen to what I say
If you want a better place to live in, spread the word today
Show the world that love is still alive, you must be brave
Or you children of today are children of the grave, yeah

-also Ozzy

Next thing you know they'll take my thoughts away.

They already did Dave.

That said, slavery wasn't finally outlawed across British colonies until 1834, fewer than 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. While I haven't extensively researched a timeline, I kinda expect that America and the UK were having similar debates around the same time... then again, even the founding fathers who criticized slavery were often slaveholders themselves (including Alexander Hamilton, who also bought and sold slaves on behalf of relatives).

First off, slavery in the north was drastically different than it was in the south. This is largely due to the higher industrialization and lack of a serious cash crop. So a slave in the north would likely be about on-par with a maid or servant as opposed to what happened down south. To top it off the North had a massive number of immigrants so there was little point in spending the money to buy and maintain a slave when you could hire an immigrant for pathetic wages. The issue with the south, however, is that it's economy was largely dependent on crops in order to survive. As such outlawing slavery would have meant complete economic ruin for the south. However even in the south there were problems with the quality of the goods grown and, were it not for the invention of the Cotton Gin (which was, sadly, invented to try and make life better for the remaining slaves as opposed to revitalizing the industry) it's likely it would have died out. But with the Cotton Gin revitalizing the industry the south's economy was further tied to the cash crop which required slaves.

In Britain it was illegal to own slaves and even in the colonies it was a grey area. The growing importance of the American colonies meant it wasn't unlikely that England would have outlawed slavery before long which would have ruined the south. The north was no fan of slavery either and desired it gone but it needed the south in order to succeed in the war of independence. They did work to do things like outlaw the import of fresh slaves though.

The Civil War was really sort of inevitable to be honest. There was no way that a centralized government could have continued to permit slavery in the south with the increasing hatred in the north. Likewise a decentalized government would likely have crumbled apart upon this issue and the only way unity could be preserved would be permitting slavery across the nation which would have outraged the North. With the newly-born Republican party running a president on strong anti-slavery agendas it was blatant that, if Lincoln won, the south would have a choice between succession or economic ruin. We can still see this today as the south is notoriously full of things like rednecks which are basically the result of said economic collapse.
---