I do understand what it is you're saying LOUDMOUTH, it's only right we hate and despise those things that can cause us all harm.

All I'm trying to say Joe, these terrible atrocities committed by ISIS and other fanatical religious groups are more or less driven by 'hate'. It's for this reason I think it's a word that can cause some much misery from a minute scale up to and including international terrorism.

Many of the crimes of violence committed 'in prison' are definitely precipitated by a hatred. Moreover, many incidences of really profound levels of violence, often leading to murder, that occur in the domestic settings (from my experiences at least) have their origins formulated in long term, and entrenched hate.

Sometimes encouraged by a close family relative, with serious interminable issues of malevolence and rancour toward the victim. And being so motivated, they may aid and abet the perpetrator in the commission of the offence. For a simple, four letter single syllable word, it can sure conjure up a great deal of power and influence over people !

I'm sorry Joe, I'm sometimes at a loss of how to express precisely what it is, I'm trying to convey, therefore I hope the foregoing will help in some way to explain my position ?

Hi O Sung Wu,

'Hate' is a word, and I don't think it ever killed anybody. Hate does, every day lately, it seems: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey - hundreds of innocent people killed by bombs, by evil people, by an evil ideology. Such evil SHOULD be hated, surely ?

But I go along with the Christian maxim, 'Hate the sin, not the sinner', up to a point. Maybe not terrorists though. However, even the purest of us can come out with hateful ideas: Gandhi is reported to have reflected that, if Jews under Nazi oppression had committed mass suicide, this "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." [George Orwell, 'Reflections on Gandhi', quoted in Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith', p. 202.] i.e. that to avoid being hated, they should have killed themselves. So innocent people should do what their haters want ? Never: that just lets the haters off the hook.

I wish there wasn't evil in the world, but since there is, then hate is necessary, proper, just and to be advocated enthusiastically.

When I first noticed this Forum title, I thought it was about words that we shouldn't use. When I was in Third Class, I had a wonderful teacher named Mr Laffey: he taught us not to use lazy words like 'got', and 'nice', for which there were far more appropriate and expressive words. He used to write them on a bit of paper and put the bits in a box, suspended from the classroom ceiling. That way, he forced us to find better words, to be mindful of how we spoke and wrote. Brilliant man.

Evil exists. Evil people do terrible things, motivated by evil and hateful ideologies, tarted up as religion. Surely we must oppose such terrible ideas - we must hate them ? Otherwise what are we, brainless, moral-less jellyfish ?

Not that I've got anything against jellyfish. They've only got one life like the rest of us. Leave them in peace.

Joe

Hi again Joe (LOUDMOUTH)...

I agree entirely with what you've said, that hate has never killed anybody. However, hate does precipitate or triggers violence a very necessary ingredient I would've thought. I would agree, when in Vietnam, I couldn't say, 'hand on heart' I 'hated' our enemy. I did however 'hate' the heat, the dust, the humidity, the mozzies, the risk of stepping into a 'panji pit' and a million other things that made our lives most uncomfortable. I feared our enemy, but 'hate' no, never.

I would hasten to say though Joe, that most premeditated acts of violence were 'hate' driven. 'Hate' to me at least, is a vile word with all of the worst connotations imaginable. I'll agree it's in common use today, almost everywhere without exception. I use the word myself - often and unthinkingly. I hate the traffic, politicians, expensive fuel costs etc etc. Perhaps Joe I'm simply getting too old and contrary, as well as manifestly obstinate!

From my experience, those making the loudest noises about, and excuses for racism and hatred have never been the victims of it.

It's also tribalism in it's most raw and basic form - the "us and them".

Even if the "others" don't exist we create them to feel more assured about ourselves. Communists, Asians, Muslims, gays ..who's next?

Hate and fear are also the handiest levers for all leaders to pull to make people do what you want them to do.

This thread is an exercise in Political Correctness.
To ban "Hate" is as silly as banning "Love".

They are words to describe an emotion.
That is all, nothing more than that.

Too much time to waste I suspect.

Hi there BAZZ...

Perhaps you're right, it may be an exercise in political correctness, I wouldn't know - and I suspect neither would you.

For your benefit BAZZ; what I was trying to convey was not the import of the verb 'hate' in isolation, rather what it represents in the hearts and minds of those who wish to exact their own brand of 'hate' on those who represent everything that's an anathema to their ideology and religious proclivities.

'Hate' in itself is found in everyday use, and employed quite frequently whenever most of us wish to describe our abhorrence for something that may do nothing more than simply annoy us. Maybe ranging from a variety of food we dislike immensely, through to someone in our workplace, or anything else we might find irritating or tiresome. Implausibly as it may seem BAZZ, there are many who 'hate' police ?

The precise paradigm of 'hate' to which I refer, is one that may best be described as institutionalised. ISIS 'hates' the West. HITLER 'hated' the Jews - that in essence BAZZ is precisely what it was I was referring too, and you do know it ! I have no illusions BAZZ, a man of your superior intellect will easily unravel my fundamental explanation, without the need to engage in language of a kind that is discernibly condescending. Have a good afternoon there ol' man.