• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is hate a Choice?

Is Hate a Choice?


  • Total voters
    41
Here's another Gwendoline:
The Psychopath: The Mask of Sanity

My point is; does someone like a psychopath who has no capacity for empathy have choice when it comes to doing hateful things to others?

I think not. Psychopaths don't respond the same way others of us do to other people's suffering. They have to fake emotions.

It's so idiotic that they decided to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. It makes much more sense to use sociopath for people who "have no conscience" but are not out of touch with the basics of reality, such as Timothy McVeigh. And psychopath for people who do evil things because they are out of touch with the basics of reality. You know, like when burning bushes start talking to you and the same voice tells you to kill your son or commit genocide against the Canaanites, like Moses.
 
It's so idiotic that they decided to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. It makes much more sense to use sociopath for people who "have no conscience" but are not out of touch with the basics of reality, such as Timothy McVeigh. And psychopath for people who do evil things because they are out of touch with the basics of reality. You know, like when burning bushes start talking to you and the same voice tells you to kill your son or commit genocide against the Canaanites, like Moses.

I sense a little hate in your post.:lol:
 
I sense a little hate in your post.:lol:

Well I do find the old testament a little morally outrageous, but there was a lot of insurmountable ignorance in those days.

I really dislike the redundant and arbitrary nature of psychology, but it's a "science" in its infancy. And if people like those who wrote that article continue to contribute to it, it won't mature anytime soon. lol
 
It's so idiotic that they decided to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. It makes much more sense to use sociopath for people who "have no conscience" but are not out of touch with the basics of reality, such as Timothy McVeigh. And psychopath for people who do evil things because they are out of touch with the basics of reality. You know, like when burning bushes start talking to you and the same voice tells you to kill your son or commit genocide against the Canaanites, like Moses.

I hate stupid people who can't be bothered to buy a dictionary. :)
 
It's so idiotic that they decided to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. It makes much more sense to use sociopath for people who "have no conscience" but are not out of touch with the basics of reality, such as Timothy McVeigh. And psychopath for people who do evil things because they are out of touch with the basics of reality. You know, like when burning bushes start talking to you and the same voice tells you to kill your son or commit genocide against the Canaanites, like Moses.

:prof Psychopaths are not out of touch with reality.

You are thinking of Psychotics.
 
Last edited:
:prof - Difference between a psychopath and a sociopath:

Which brings me back to the original question: the difference between a psychopath and sociopath. If you subscribe to the Hare criteria for a psychopath, then you see the conning, manipulative narcissistic liar and user as a psychopath, as long as he or she is completely lacking in remorse or empathy. The sociopath, however, is capable of guilt, caring, building relationships, etc., but only within a certain context. He or she will have loyalties to a specific group but not to society at large. They care nothing for social norms and will break them with impunity if it serves their purpose. So, on the surface, they may resemble psychopaths. However, they might genuinely feel remorse over harming someone within their group or family. They will have a moral code specific to that context: they might not lie, exploit, or manipulate within the group. Thus, they exhibit psychopathic behaviors in certain contexts but not all.
In Cold Blog: Psychopath vs. Sociopath
 
Is hate a choice? If it is, why would anyone choose it? It's not good for us or anyone around us. Bad for emotional / physical health. Has a way of making us look / sound ugly, and it ties our insides up in knots. Poisons relationships, spreads ill-will, creates unnecessary stress, and it also has a tendency to escalate / turn into violent / aggressive behaviour if left unchecked. Hate dehumanises people, which is one of the worst things it does.

Special Note: Hate is a natural reaction / emotion to certain things. It is a very human thing to feel hate at times. I'm not talking about the kind of hate we feel in the moment that passes quickly, or at least, passes reasonably quickly, I am not talking about a natural reaction of hate that is triggered in us in an "immediate" situation happening around us. I am talking about an "attitude of hate". An attitude of hate that "prevails" and becomes part of persons prominent makeup - a part of their constant dialogue - where a person expresses strong hatred towards others in the shape / form of attacking / scapegoating / one particular group or another, be they women or homosexuals or Jews, and on.

Is hate a choice? If yes, why choose it? It's incredibly destructive as a behaviour / and it cuts us off from genuine human engagement with others. Hate doesn't seem to have much going for it. What do you think?

Please choose whichever answer/s resonate with you.

Hate from my perspective is a choice. I grew up in a family of haters. No Im not joking all the men in my family are this way. As I grew up I also became this way and lived being angry at everything all the time.

It took my driving away everyone I cared about to realize how I was acting and at that point I took a good inward look at myself and saw just what I had become. From that day forward I vowed never to be that way again and I think I have suceeded.

You wonder at the reason. I believe it is because it seems to be easier for them to be angry at the world instead of coping with the world. It is their reaction to everything. If someone/something does something I do not agree with it is easier to get angry, complain, and ignore it rather then take the time and the possibility of failure to manage it in a more responsible way. I think it is a symptom of insecurity.
 
You almost got a thanks for that except ya had to go and add the Whitesox part.

I fixed it for you though. :2razz:

Pfft. Sox suck. The AL is a bunch of cheaters anyway. Cubs may not have won in over 100 years, but they're still the better franchise. And we'll win that damned series soon enough! Just you wait and see, and when we do...there will be riots everywhere. I'm gonna loot a Walmart.
 
And we'll win that damned series soon enough! Just you wait and see, and when we do...there will be riots everywhere. I'm gonna loot a Walmart.

Yeah.... the denial of the Cubs fan truly is something to behold. :2razz::lol:
 
Yeah.... the denial of the Cubs fan truly is something to behold. :2razz::lol:

It's not denial. It's going to happen! And at least the NL doesn't have the damned DH cheater position.
 
It's not denial. It's going to happen!

Sure it will.... Sure it will. :lol:

And at least the NL doesn't have the damned DH cheater position.

How is a DH cheating? :confused: If anything, it gives a disadvantage to the AL in the world series because their pitchers are not used to hitting and the managers are not used to double switches and such.

Instead, I argue that not having a DH means the NL cheats.
 
How is a DH cheating? :confused: If anything, it gives a disadvantage to the AL in the world series because their pitchers are not used to hitting and the managers are not used to double switches and such.

Instead, I argue that not having a DH means the NL cheats.

No way. The DH is a cheater position and clearly gives the advantage to the AL. The AL teams spend tons of money on a DH, a guy who can only hit. The NL just has to pick someone from their team. Pitchers, regardless of league, seem not used to hitting (which makes no sense to me because they've played baseball their whole lives, they've had to learn to bat a little at least. I think a pitcher should at least be able to bat near .200) so that's a wash. And your last point is a great point against the DH, it takes out strategy. The NL has to think a bit more about how to do things. The AL, you just sit back and wait for someone to hit the homerun.

The DH is a crap position. You're getting paid 10's of millions at least to play baseball, so play baseball. Even Manny Ramirez has to play a position (god I hate that guy), get out there and do it. The DH gives clear advantage to the AL and is exactly why the AL is a bunch of cheaters. Especially NY and Boston.
 
Last edited:
No way. The DH is a cheater position and clearly gives the advantage to the AL. The AL teams spend tons of money on a DH, a guy who can only hit. The NL just has to pick someone from their team. Pitchers, regardless of league, seem not used to hitting (which makes no sense to me because they've played baseball their whole lives, they've had to learn to bat a little at least. I think a pitcher should at least be able to bat near .200) so that's a wash. And your last point is a great point against the DH, it takes out strategy. The NL has to think a bit more about how to do things. The AL, you just sit back and wait for someone to hit the homerun.

The DH is a crap position. You're getting paid 10's of millions at least to play baseball, so play baseball. Even Manny Ramirez has to play a position (god I hate that guy), get out there and do it. The DH gives clear advantage to the AL and is exactly why the AL is a bunch of cheaters. Especially NY and Boston.

We should probably start another thread to discuss the merits/demerits of the DH and stop hijacking this one. :lol:
 
So sick of the hobos
always beggin' for change
I don't like how I have to work
and they just sit around and get paid...


I hate all the people
who can't drive their cars
guess you better get out of my way
before I start fallin' apart....

I hate how my wife
is always up my ass
she always wants to buy brand new things
and I don't have the cash.

I hate my job
all my rich friends
I hate everyone to the bitter end
Nothin' turns out right
there's no end in sight
I hate my life...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oxaberFIvw"]YouTube - THEORY OF A DEADMAN Hate My Life[/ame]
 
Last edited:
It's so idiotic that they decided to use psychopath and sociopath interchangeably. It makes much more sense to use sociopath for people who "have no conscience" but are not out of touch with the basics of reality, such as Timothy McVeigh. And psychopath for people who do evil things because they are out of touch with the basics of reality. You know, like when burning bushes start talking to you and the same voice tells you to kill your son or commit genocide against the Canaanites, like Moses.

Sociopaths and psychopaths share some common denominators but are not the same.

You are confusing psychotic with psychopaths. Psychotics hallucinate. Psychopaths are sane. They know right from wrong. They are legally sane. They have no empathy for others, and there brains are wired differently from the rest of us.

A number of them do not kill anyone and are drawn to and thrive in cuthroat corporate environments.
 
I agree with Catz, hate is taught, though sometimes it is a natural reaction to things one does not understand.

Hate is Taught. IF you survive the Lesson.:roll: By those that hate you.
 
How exactly is hate taught?

Hate arises from within. It's a reaction.

While hate its self may not be something that is taught, attaching it to everything you dislike or do not agree with can be.
 
While hate its self may not be something that is taught, attaching it to everything you dislike or do not agree with can be.

Yes. It can become a habit to hate, and think, speak and act hatefully.

Become Pavlovian; stimulus--response, and not much thought or consideration in between.
 
I voted that hate is a Choice.

However, after reading the thread, a caveat…

Hate is a choice, but one can be influenced into choosing hatred by those around them. In other words, "Taught".

At Tucker Case.

I agree in the main. I cannot deny that rage builds within me when I think of pedophiles and their actions.

Terrorists come to mind as another group worthy of hatred.

Although actually, I do not so much "hate" terrorists, as I do "pity" them. Actually, I consider terrorists as a good example of "taught" hatred, taken to an extreme.
 
I voted that hate is a Choice.

However, after reading the thread, a caveat…

Hate is a choice, but one can be influenced into choosing hatred by those around them. In other words, "Taught".

At Tucker Case.

I agree in the main. I cannot deny that rage builds within me when I think of pedophiles and their actions.

Terrorists come to mind as another group worthy of hatred.

Although actually, I do not so much "hate" terrorists, as I do "pity" them. Actually, I consider terrorists as a good example of "taught" hatred, taken to an extreme.


I was struck by the phrase 'group worthy of hatred'. Since hate is in the mind and heart of the one who hates is the hater worthy of entertaining a mind state of hate.

It hurts the hater more than those hated in this way. JMO
 
I was struck by the phrase 'group worthy of hatred'. Since hate is in the mind and heart of the one who hates is the hater worthy of entertaining a mind state of hate.

It hurts the hater more than those hated in this way. JMO

Perhaps "group worthy of hatred" is not an accurate way to describe it.

It is more, in my mind, something along the lines of "subset of persons whose actions in part or in whole are worthy of hatred or despise".

I don't actually hate the person who commits such an action unless or until they commit said action. I dislike child molestation to such an extent that I sometimes find myself considering torture as an appropriate punishment.

This, IMO, is hatred of a certain action, which in most cases transfers immediately to the person doing the deed. Certainly I transfer my hatred of the act of Child molestation to the person committing it.

If this is wrong, I don't know how I can be right, as I cannot see anyway around hating such actions and the persons who commit them.

Edit: Although I wonder if perhaps "utter loathing and a desire for revenge against" is a better term for my feelings than a simple "hatred".

Likely it means the same in the end.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps "group worthy of hatred" is not an accurate way to describe it.

It is more, in my mind, something along the lines of "subset of persons whose actions in part or in whole are worthy of hatred or despise".

.

How about, "group who, by their actions and intentions, are worthy of being exterminated."

Works for me. Hate doesn't necessarily have to enter into it...I'd drop the hammer on someone I liked, if they were threatening someone I loved.
 
How about, "group who, by their actions and intentions, are worthy of being exterminated."

Works for me. Hate doesn't necessarily have to enter into it...I'd drop the hammer on someone I liked, if they were threatening someone I loved.

Perhaps, perhaps.

But in my mind, there is no "group" out there which deserves this.

Nor will there ever be.

Individuals, yes.

I dislike classifying persons into a "group". It breeds ignorance of the individuals who make up said group. Although it is easier, and I tend to do it myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom