On the Pleasure of Hating.

[G.T.]

The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.

"That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.

Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

 

[ding]

The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.

"That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.

Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

 

[ding]

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

I didn’t start an argument. You are.

 

[Mindful]

The pleasure of hating, like a poisonous mineral, eats into the heart of religion, and turns it to rankling spleen and bigotry; it makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands: it leaves to virtue nothing but the spirit of censoriousness, and a narrow, jealous, inquisitorial watchfulness over the actions and motives of others. What have the different sects, creeds, doctrines in religion been but so many pretexts set up for men to wrangle, to quarrel, to tear one another in pieces about, like a target as a mark to shoot at? Does any one suppose that the love of country in an Englishman implies any friendly feeling or disposition to serve another bearing the same name? No, it means only hatred to the French or the inhabitants of any other country that we happen to be at war with for the time. Does the love of virtue denote any wish to discover or amend our own faults? No, but it atones for an obstinate adherence to our own vices by the most virulent intolerance to human frailties. This principle is of a most universal application. It extends to good as well as evil: if it makes us hate folly, it makes us no less dissatisfied with distinguished merit. If it inclines us to resent the wrongs of others, it impels us to be as impatient of their prosperity. We revenge injuries: we repay benefits with ingratitude. Even our strongest partialities and likings soon take this turn.

"That which was luscious as locusts, anon becomes bitter as coloquintida;" and love and friendship melt in their own fires. We hate old friends: we hate old books: we hate old opinions; and at last we come to hate ourselves.

Wm. Hazlitt - "On The Pleasure Of Hating" (c.1826).

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

Yes.

 

[ding]

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

 

[G.T.]

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

I didn’t start an argument. You are.

"I would argue" - ding

"i didnt start an argument" - ding

 

[Mindful]

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

 

[ding]

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

Yes.

So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?

 

[ding]

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

I know what you are doing.

 

[Mindful]

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

Yes.

So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?

That doesn't excuse you.

 

[Mindful]

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

I know what you are doing.

Do you? Because I don't.

 

[ding]

I would argue we hate ourselves first and hate in others what we hate most about ourselves.

So if we transform ourself in effect we transform the world around us.

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.

 

[ding]

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

I know what you are doing.

Do you? Because I don't.

Yes. I do.

 

[Mindful]

I've seen that argument many times.

But the premise here is about enjoying it

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.

Only two?

That's unadventurous of you.

 

[Mindful]

What conversation?

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

I know what you are doing.

Do you? Because I don't.

Yes. I do.

Enlighten me.

I've been in the darkness for too long.

 

[ding]

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

Yes.

So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?

That doesn't excuse you.

From what? All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.

Apparently that was asking too much. So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.

 

[ding]

The one I thought we were having.

You know what thought did, don't you?

I know what you are doing.

Do you? Because I don't.

Yes. I do.

Enlighten me.

I've been in the darkness for too long.

You are grinding an ax.

 

[ding]

I don’t understand. Which argument have you seen many times? Enjoy what?

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.

Only two?

That's unadventurous of you.

Yes. Only two.

 

[Mindful]

Be quiet!

Really?

You respond to my post and I ask for clarification and you tell me to be quiet?

Yes.

So you are only interested in your opinion or opinions that are in agreement with your opinion?

That doesn't excuse you.

From what? All I did to incur your wrath and the wrath of GT was to ask you to clarify two things.

Apparently that was asking too much. So here we are 15 posts into to being off topic and discussing me instead of the OP.

My wrath?

I can do the death stare.

Aren't you just thrilled it's about you? Enjoy.

 

[Mindful]

"i would argue" you said.

she said, "ive seen that argument"

you responded, "which argument?"

Get over yourself already and stop gunking up the conversation.

If you can't even follow the simple flow of the conversation, one cannot be had.

You started an argument by saying "I would argue"

Someone commented on "that argument"

Then, you had to ask which argument. That's such tedious disregard for comprehension and it sucks for anyone to have to deal with.

All she had to clarify. There were literally two different positions. I prefer not to make assumptions.

Only two?

That's unadventurous of you.

Yes. Only two.

Oh shame.