There's no obligation not to hate which would be an infringement of right, law, entitlement

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by northpolarbear, Oct 21, 2015.

  1. northpolarbear
    Offline

    northpolarbear Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    260
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Ratings:
    +53
    There's no obligation not to hate which would be an infringement of right, law, entitlement, legitimacy, rightfulness of a valid hatred. It goes the same whether the rightful hatred against wrongness is for a group (race, ethnicity, nation, town, corporation, etc) or a specific individual person in it (hatred or repersion as not easy on the eyes or mind) or just a random specific individual person who personally did something wrong to you. This is a fact, logic, entitlement, rightfulness, legitimacy; an entitlement is not a matter of opinion (certainly not what "you" want for "someone else's rightful free will or act").

    Reverse oppression against rightful entitlements & rights is wrongful aside from whatever happens to the normal direction oppression. It's an infringement of right, law, entitlement, legitimacy, rightfulness. Also, so-called normal direction oppression is not necessarily an oppression sometimes but a right, law, entitlement, legitimacy, rightfulness. We are either looking at what someone should do or would (want) to do. We already looked at what someone should do (rightfulness, entitlement, no obligation). As for what someone would do, again, it is an infringement of his right, free will, free act to force him to do what "you" want instead of what he wants.

    One should not have to do what he doesn't want nor like especially when it's rightfully entitled aside from how he would not & don't want to do such.

    The matter with rightfulness & should is simple. Either one should do something or should not do something. In this case, we are talking what's rightfully entitled & "should" be done. Aside from it, it is wanted to be done & would be done anyway.

    As for anyone who wants to stop such, such is a violation of right; it is immoral & wrongful aside from being illegal anyway. You should not make someone do what he doesn't like nor want especially for the things rightfully entitled. What he would do or want to do is his own call entirely. As for what he should do, we are talking the case where he is rightfully entitled to such; he should do such. Also, he should do what he wants & likes. He shouldn't have to do what he doesn't want & doesn't like.

    What you want to have or what you want to see is irrelevant. You can't tell someone what to do. It is not a right you are entitled to. It is not an obligation that someone is forced with. Your whole existence is separate & irrelevant to him. His rights are independent of your want, especially when you want wrongful things. You "should not" tell someone what to do. If you forcefully attempt to make someone do what you want which he doesn't want, it is just plain illegal aside from also being immoral & wrongful. You are just punished & sued. You should be punished & sued. On top of it, you are obviously legitimately hated.

    So, I am talking logical hatred & illogical hatred here. It is logical to feel hatred as a cause & effect upon something bad for you (by how you feel, see, value) happening. It is illogical to feel hatred when nothing happens or something bad for you penalizes you because you did something wrong.

    If you want to include the illogical hatred into the logical hatred by not caring about whether whatever happens to you is a rightful penalization against you doing something wrong or not, it is still simple. Then, I am talking proper hatred & improper hatred. This is a matter of cause & effect with the right to the entitlement to feel & reflect upon something bad for you.

    The victim should not have to go through such. If someone else violates the victim, then that someone else is hated instead. The hatred is proper if something bad for you happens; it is a cause & effect; you are entitled to how you feel & respond to it. The hatred is improper is nothing happens or something happens to penalize you doing something wrong. I am just handling the general notion aside from the appropriate degree or type of punishment. The hatred is either logical or illogical, proper or improper. In any case, the hatred is entitled when something bad happens to you; it is a right to a cause & effect.

    Aside from rightful legitimate hatred following as a valid consequence being entitled, having it is each's own call while what you want is irrelevant. They should not have to do what you want. They have no such obligation. They are entitled to what they want to do which happens to be rightful & legitimate. They should do what they want. It's each's own call. In my case, I happen to hate rightfully when I am entitled to such.

    Also, so called "moving on" is neither rightful nor obligation. Such is not an entitled act. You can't force someone else to do so. Someone else should not have to do so. As for whether he not wanting so & not going to do so, it is entirely 100% his call.

    Nothing morally wrong with promoting hatred when it is the fact & rightful consequence, not to mention being legal. The question is whether the premise is correct.

    What you want (what you want to have or what you want to see) is irrelevant. You telling someone what to do is wrongful aside from obviously clearly rejected & not given a shit. A hatred is rightfully entitled; whether to pursue is each's own call; I happen to pursue which is legitimate & only up to my own free will 100%.

    Whether you do something anyway, because of whatever, or not has nothing to do with the victim rightfully legitimately responding & feeling hatred anyway. Such is a natural response entitled to feel. It is a right. It is a reflection. Just because you want to avoid such doesn’t mean the entitlement for the victim to feel legitimately is void; it is still valid. Your inconvenience has nothing to do with the victim. You have no right nor power to make the victim not feel the legitimate rightful response. You do something with your want that the victim should not have to be involved? The victim is harmed, bothered, involved in any way by you because of your want? You naturally get a hatred. It is a rightful legitimate response that is felt. That feeling is entitled. It is logical & valid. It doesn’t get cancel out regardless of whatever. There is no equation that can take away that entitlement. It is a response & feeling you have no right nor power to violate. It is logical, natural, legitimate. It’s a right, a simple reflection entitled.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2015
  2. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    80,354
    Thanks Received:
    9,777
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +21,279
    There is no logic to hate. Hate is an emotion. Emotions arent logical by definition.

    It also helps if you don't use double negatives to argue a point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page