First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Truth for Hate...!
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/12/10
"Simple debate this time.' Topic being confusing truth for hate."

It seems to a running gag here on this forum plus in the world at large, that people mistake the truth as hate.

'Wen someone points out a proven fact and the next person yells at them calling that person hateful it is mind-numbing how often this really happens in the forums, and in the real world.'

Like wen your friend tells you that your favorite show had been canceled, and you reply with anger why are you hating on me, as if he pointing out or letting you know of a fact is a sign of hate toward you. For another example a doctor points out you have appendicitis, and you yell at his telling him to quit hating on you. As if someone pointing out a fact, in-order for you to correct it before it is to late is a form of hate or flaming/trolling.

Sense wen is sharing facts become a sign of protruding hate onto others?

Scientist Moderator
digs 
38050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/12/10
People can't handle the truth, so they respond with hate or attack the source of the truth, I think it's a sign of immaturity.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
63 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 4/12/10
... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/12/10 , edited 4/12/10

blancer wrote:

... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?


'I think your mistaking Assumptions as Facts. Like some assume that Adolf Hitler targeted Jews because their an easy group to blame with much prejudices on them as it was. Other assume that Adolf had a deep seated hate for his father and projected that onto the Jewish people. Both are assumptions not really facts. Facts are observable, testable, and never fail to fallow the same primadors that it always does.

It is a fact that a apple drop anywhere on earth will fall. As it also a fact that a bullet shot at a strait angel from a gun will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet that is dropped into a free fall from the same height. This is not debatable because its a fact. One that can be mathematically proven and observed. (but I do assume you new that, and I was just repeating what you already know.)
Posted 4/12/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

"Simple debate this time.' Topic being confusing truth for hate."

It seems to a running gag here on this forum plus in the world at large, that people mistake the truth as hate.

'Wen someone points out a proven fact and the next person yells at them calling that person hateful it is mind-numbing how often this really happens in the forums, and in the real world.'

Like wen your friend tells you that your favorite show had been canceled, and you reply with anger why are you hating on me, as if he pointing out or letting you know of a fact is a sign of hate toward you. For another example a doctor points out you have appendicitis, and you yell at his telling him to quit hating on you. As if someone pointing out a fact, in-order for you to correct it before it is to late is a form of hate or flaming/trolling.

Sense wen is sharing facts become a sign of protruding hate onto others?

I think it has to do with what and how individually people handle objective truth/empirical knowledge being supported with facts, and why collectively society is allowing such behavior to become acceptable as a social norm.

While we're at it, I think it's important that we should establish some English vocabularies for clarity sake, thanks to those who can't hold their own arguments without a dictionary drilled into their brains. When regarding the truth we're only referring to objective truth -something observable in nature thus makes it a natural occurrence-, and empirical knowledge; veritable facts that are quantifiable via a measuring system. Therefore the objective truth on the nature of hate is by psychological definition an emotional respond with a negative annotation. And if that's too hard for some to understand then my suggestion is to go look it up on a psychology text book, because I'm an intellectual but not a shepherd of some sheep, who pretend to be people with free will.

That being said -and it felt good damn it!- I think when individuals with a high neuroticism value came across with an objective truth or an empirical knowledge that identifies themselves with an negative annotation, such examples would be smokers being a turnoff because their smoking habit makes their breath smells bad and their teeth look yellowish, fat people being more likely to die due to diabetes and heart failure, physically inactive people being more likely to suffer from depression, people-pleasing is a sign of low self-confidence. They overreacted to the negativity by them prompting themselves with fear and panic, which resulted with them either fighting or fleeting as a self-preserving respond. Instead of them rationalize the information and then come up with a solution.

We can observe this behavior on our children during their development stages, which psychologists identified it as self-pity; the habit of wanting and seeking for shelter and comfort whenever something threatening shows up. Evolutionary psychology sees self-pity as an important self-defense mechanism that's deeply rooted within our lumbic system, aka the lizard brain. And it's true, for the human beings spend much of their life span in physical development, especially when you consider the fact that the human frontal lobe -aka the thinking brain- doesn't reach full maturation until age 24 on average.

Therefore I hypothesize that when people hang onto their self-pitying habit for too long, the end result will be them overreacting towards anything that's remotely negative. Regardless of the negative validity of the subject itself being true or not, or the physical maturity of themselves.

Hm, this almost makes me want to explore the psychology of fear.
Posted 4/12/10
One truth I am sure of is that many people see what they want to see. To have anyone object to that causes this unforgivable disturbance in their blissful illusion.
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

Glock45 wrote:

One truth I am sure of is that many people see what they want to see. To have anyone object to that causes this unforgivable disturbance in their blissful illusion.
I play the "blissful ignorance" and finish my turn. Your move.

When they can neither fight it nor run away from it, denial seems to be their next rational choice in order for them to make themselves feel good.
24735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/13/10

blancer wrote:

... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?

i wouldn't call it obscure because they do teach it in school well i think it was 9th grade but i seem to remember tidbits. I think it was franz Ferdinand being shot seemed to set it ww1 off but im sure there were other factors. Just that one popped the balloon. Just an fyi this next one.////America got in it because the Lusitania (w.e its name is)
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


blancer wrote:

... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?


It is a fact that a apple drop anywhere on earth will fall. As it also a fact that a bullet shot at a strait angel from a gun will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet that is dropped into a free fall from the same height. This is not debatable because its a fact. One that can be mathematically proven and observed. (but I do assume you new that, and I was just repeating what you already know.)


That gun example is not a fact because it is wrong. A bullet that is fired to the ground and a bullet dropped to the ground at the same height will yield different results.

As for the topic, I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate. Truth is something that is true whatever happens. Hate is a negative feeling. Those two are different in a way that you can't really mislead the two of them. You can say something true even if you hate that person. And you can say something false even if you do not hate that person. Therefore, it is impossible to mislead hate from truth.

For clarification. Telling someone the truth can produce hate sometimes. Of course, if a doctor operating someone you love said that he can no longer be saved, it is "normal" for you to at least feel hate at the inability of the doctor who is operating someone you love. In schools, if you corrected a teacher and the teacher hated it, it is the teacher's sense of pride that may make her feel hateful to you. However, no matter what happens, it is a "fact" that the doctor and the student is correct. In a way, hate and truth are not mislead.
Posted 4/13/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


blancer wrote:

... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?


It is a fact that a apple drop anywhere on earth will fall. As it also a fact that a bullet shot at a strait angel from a gun will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet that is dropped into a free fall from the same height. This is not debatable because its a fact. One that can be mathematically proven and observed. (but I do assume you new that, and I was just repeating what you already know.)


That gun example is not a fact because it is wrong. A bullet that is fired to the ground and a bullet dropped to the ground at the same height will yield different results.

As for the topic, I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate. Truth is something that is true whatever happens. Hate is a negative feeling. Those two are different in a way that you can't really mislead the two of them. You can say something true even if you hate that person. And you can say something false even if you do not hate that person. Therefore, it is impossible to mislead hate from truth.

For clarification. Telling someone the truth can produce hate sometimes. Of course, if a doctor operating someone you love said that he can no longer be saved, it is "normal" for you to at least feel hate at the inability of the doctor who is operating someone you love. In schools, if you corrected a teacher and the teacher hated it, it is the teacher's sense of pride that may make her feel hateful to you. However, no matter what happens, it is a "fact" that the doctor and the student is correct. In a way, hate and truth are not mislead.

Of course, I can assume that someone hates me because someone reported me. I can also assume a situation if this is a case. There may be a case when I happened to do something that is VALID yet because of that person's pride, he feels hateful of me! Of course, I can never deny that person's action as hate; however, I can never relate it into "truth". But of course, acceptance of truth is different from the truth itself. Denial or acceptance of truth may be related to hate but truth can never be related to hate.
If you can't see why would people do something, then how did you manage to make an assumption on how it happened?

So once again, why would there be those who react negatively towards objective truth or empirical knowledge? And be realistic about it. You described what and how it happened, but you said nothing about why. That's like you only repeated the topic, without you furthering the debate by you contributing anything of real relevancy.

BTW, reporting your original post was irrelevant to the topic? My idea. And you're welcome.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

DomFortress wrote:


If you can't see why would people do something, then how did you manage to make an assumption on how it happened?

So once again, why would there be those who react negatively towards objective truth or empirical knowledge? And be realistic about it. You described what and how it happened, but you said nothing about why. That's like you only repeated the topic, without you furthering the debate by you contributing anything of real relevancy.

BTW, reporting your original post was irrelevant to the topic? My idea. And you're welcome.


As a note, that is only an assumption based on probability based on my most recent experience in the forum. My assumption may be wrong, however, the possibility of it to happen is not 0.

I don't know about you. But I'm not here to follow your standards. I'm here to answer the OP's question. And at least provide the insight that telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago. I did not come here to provide some processes the brain does when a person is understanding a truth, feeling hate, or even understanding the brain process of someone with high neuroticism value and differentiating it from someone with low neuroticism value. I want to at least keep it simple for people to understand.

So, did my edited post contribute enough to the discussion to not be reported?
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


blancer wrote:

... especially when the truth cant be proven with on - line found facts (forums). Or when the truth is obscured (answer me this: who started WWI ?). Or when there are good points for both sides (like pro and against abortion) - both sides have their own, fact - proven truths. Then what?


It is a fact that a apple drop anywhere on earth will fall. As it also a fact that a bullet shot at a strait angel from a gun will hit the ground at the same time as a bullet that is dropped into a free fall from the same height. This is not debatable because its a fact. One that can be mathematically proven and observed. (but I do assume you new that, and I was just repeating what you already know.)


That gun example is not a fact because it is wrong. A bullet that is fired to the ground and a bullet dropped to the ground at the same height will yield different results.

As for the topic, I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate. Truth is something that is true whatever happens. Hate is a negative feeling. Those two are different in a way that you can't really mislead the two of them. You can say something true even if you hate that person. And you can say something false even if you do not hate that person. Therefore, it is impossible to mislead hate from truth.

For clarification. Telling someone the truth can produce hate sometimes. Of course, if a doctor operating someone you love said that he can no longer be saved, it is "normal" for you to at least feel hate at the inability of the doctor who is operating someone you love. In schools, if you corrected a teacher and the teacher hated it, it is the teacher's sense of pride that may make her feel hateful to you. However, no matter what happens, it is a "fact" that the doctor and the student is correct. In a way, hate and truth are not mislead.


Except for the fact that gravity effects everything equally. It is a constant. Horizontal force is independent of vertical. The gun has ways to adjust to compensate for the force of gravity. All matter falls at the same rate.
The fact that the bullet is moving has no affect on anything. Since it is symmetrical and rotating perpendicular to the line of flight, it cannot generate lift and if it could, how would it know which direction to generate it in?

The velocity of the bullet only determines how far it will be from the gun barrel to where it hits, not when it hits.

Finally, the REAL answer. The bullet dropped will hit first but not for the reasons you are probably thinking. It will hit first because the bullet fired, will have to fall farther due to the curvature of the earth. But we're talking 1/2" a mile so they will be pretty close.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9wQVIEdKh8

What physics principle does this demo show? Well, it shows two things. First, it shows that the horizontal and vertical motion in projectile motion are independent. That is, what happens in the y-direction, stays in the y-direction. Really, you can treat projectile motion as two separate problems that just happen to take the same amount of time. The second thing it shows is that the velocity in one direction does not effect the velocity in the other direction (which really is the same as the first thing).


Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


If you can't see why would people do something, then how did you manage to make an assumption on how it happened?

So once again, why would there be those who react negatively towards objective truth or empirical knowledge? And be realistic about it. You described what and how it happened, but you said nothing about why. That's like you only repeated the topic, without you furthering the debate by you contributing anything of real relevancy.

BTW, reporting your original post was irrelevant to the topic? My idea. And you're welcome.


As a note, that is only an assumption based on probability based on my most recent experience in the forum. My assumption may be wrong, however, the possibility of it to happen is not 0.

I don't know about you. But I'm not here to follow your standards. I'm here to answer the OP's question. And at least provide the insight that telling someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago. I did not come here to provide some processes the brain does when a person is understanding a truth, feeling hate, or even understanding the brain process of someone with high neuroticism value and differentiating it from someone with low neuroticism value. I want to at least keep it simple for people to understand.

So, did my edited post contribute enough to the discussion to not be reported?
At the cost of misleading your audiences with your illogical "assumption", not simplifying nor clarifying a topic with your "insight"? When you managed to use more words that the original topic thread did, and worst of all presented a bias opinion as an amateur without any formal discipline on the subject matter.

Furthermore, your initial cognitive stance of "I can't see why would people confuse truth with hate" doesn't authorize you to entitle your assumptions of "denial or acceptance of truth may be related to hate but truth can never be related to hate" nor "someone may produce hate is not impossible and has been happening long time ago" as anything but your bias opinion based on only your experience. Without you confirming your experience with your logic, thus creating a workable model of your reality with your mind. And without that invert process of you figure out "why" using "if, then, else" computation by yourself, you're but a replicator without a will of its own. And no free will, no insight. When there's no free lunches with only entitlement.

So once again, how would you attempt to reply the topic, without you just repeating the topic as an replicator. And be realistic about it.
Posted 4/13/10 , edited 4/13/10

DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

One truth I am sure of is that many people see what they want to see. To have anyone object to that causes this unforgivable disturbance in their blissful illusion.
I play the "blissful ignorance" and finish my turn. Your move.

When they can neither fight it nor run away from it, denial seems to be their next rational choice in order for them to make themselves feel good.


We see people denying the denials of their gods and continually insist on the presence of their only sole influence as being a transparent authority. I, for one, bend to nothing intangible. While my hate is aimed at ideas focused on denigrating human reasoning, the truth is, I can tolerate these ideas since at least some good can come of them.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/13/10

Glock45 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Glock45 wrote:

One truth I am sure of is that many people see what they want to see. To have anyone object to that causes this unforgivable disturbance in their blissful illusion.
I play the "blissful ignorance" and finish my turn. Your move.

When they can neither fight it nor run away from it, denial seems to be their next rational choice in order for them to make themselves feel good.


We see people denying the denials of their gods and continually insist on the presence of their only sole influence as being a transparent authority. I, for one, bend to nothing intangible. While my hate is aimed at ideas focused on denigrating human reasoning, the truth is, I can tolerate these ideas since at least some good can come of them.


If you say some good come from the continual ignorance from insisting on the intangible to be an tangible influence upon society. I say Nay! For the little good that comes from the programed masses with such design can easily be duplicated with more proactive and logical means. Hence the need for such illogical outlets is nil as we can logically construct more proficient means to develop said goals.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.