Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
290
Views

Re: evil

290 Views
Message 1 of 14

@jims730656 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@jims730656 wrote:

I agree that 'hate' can sometimes be subjective and is often in the minds of the individual, but the word 'evil' is also subjective and is interpreted by the individual.

 

Such as the comment that "all his supporters are evil too".  It not only ignores the idea that not ALL his supporters may be 'evil' people.  It also ignored the point that a lot of people who voted for him did so simply because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.

 

 


There are some - not as yet irrefutably proved to be anywhere near a majority among trump's supporters - who are not evil. 

 

What of those who would reduce/remove SS from those who would starve and die without it, and those who would remove medicare from those who would die without it - and fully realize the consequences of their intent?  

They are clearly and obviously evil - just as trump is similarly evil.

 

 

Most who voted for and support trump do not habitually and consistently reason logically and effectively - but instead "think" - "feel" - and have let their illogical and irrational belief systems as well as strong dislike of anything not decidedly conservative - including the Clintons and Obama - override rationality and logical thought processes.

 

Not evil - but strongly influenced by and admitted followers of trump's moral turpitude, ethical bankruptcy, greed, selfishness, racism, bigotry and prejudice - and plainly and obviously willing to shill and advocate for trump.

 

I  do not accept your interpretations just as you do not accept mine.

 

As for "working together" with those on the right - sure - just as soon as a majority of them have decided that immediately removing trump from office is of ultimate importance for the future well-being of the nation and world.


I never expect or insist that people accept my interpretations of things and I respect any difference of opinion so long as it's intelligent and not childishly abusive.  For that reason I  respect yours whether we agree or not.

I don't like Donald Trump, nor did I vote for him, but as long as someone who despises Trump or anyone else doesn't start calling ME stupid and evil, we can have a conversation.  But honestly, in terms of political discussion I don't see a lot of 'agree to disagree' from a lot of partisans on both sides.  It's like the Internet allows people to lose all their civility because they are safely at home and not within arms reach of someone they don't agree with.

 

As to the discussion, your first paragraph, while you tacitly admit "some" Trump supporters are not 'evil' you infer that you somehow know the character and motivations of at least the majority of his supporters.  And what makes it worse is that too many people  (and not you specifically) conflate "voters for..." and "supporters of..." and they are not at all the same.

 

I would say a lot of them only voted for Trump because they accepted the false premise that we have a "two-party system" and that Democrats and Republicans can only be those two parties.  That is patently untrue and the last election should show that.  Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the automatic winner the moment she entered the race but so many people (Independents AND Democrats) found her so repellent that millions of them 'jumped ship' and wholeheartedly supported Bernie Sanders.  And in my opinion, Sanders would have easily defeated Trump.

 

Trump himself as a candidate was almost an afterthought.  I believe he was elected mainly because he wasn't Clinton.  It surely wasn't for his record and experience, because he hadn't any.

 

As for the Democrat and Republican voters 'working together', it just won't happen.  Not until two things happen. 

First, the notion of good and evil must be completely  removed from political discourse.  ALL we ever see is the Media-controlled public face of the candidates and we do not know them as much as we think we do.  Remember, as so many people see Trump as 'evil' just as many saw Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton as 'evil' as well.

The second thing is that we must eliminate ALL political parties.  That will force the electorate to judge every candidate on his/her merits with an open, and more importantly INFORMED mind and not rely on if there's a 'D' or 'R' next to their names.

 

Those two things and perhaps one more.  Lose the whole "two-party" nonsense that the people have been indoctrinated to believe ever since childhood, and for generations..  We are not now, nor have ever been a two-party system.  Nothing in the Constitution or in any law in America does it say that and because of this slavish devotion to that system, we end up with people in the White House and Congress who have driven the country downward for the last 60 years or more.  And the country has not changed direction no matter which party controlled Congress or held the presidency.

 

You are of course free to disagree, but that's my position and I don't think I'll be commenting in this thread any longer.


I mostly agree with your post.

 

trump is unquestionably an evil and malicious personality whose words and actions will damage the Nation and World more than he will help it.

 

How many of his followers and supporters are like him cannot be confirmed.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
290
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
294
Views

Re: evil

294 Views
Message 2 of 14

@alferdpacker wrote:

 


@jims730656 wrote:

I agree that 'hate' can sometimes be subjective and is often in the minds of the individual, but the word 'evil' is also subjective and is interpreted by the individual.

 

Such as the comment that "all his supporters are evil too".  It not only ignores the idea that not ALL his supporters may be 'evil' people.  It also ignored the point that a lot of people who voted for him did so simply because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.

 

 


There are some - not as yet irrefutably proved to be anywhere near a majority among trump's supporters - who are not evil. 

 

What of those who would reduce/remove SS from those who would starve and die without it, and those who would remove medicare from those who would die without it - and fully realize the consequences of their intent?  

They are clearly and obviously evil - just as trump is similarly evil.

 

 

Most who voted for and support trump do not habitually and consistently reason logically and effectively - but instead "think" - "feel" - and have let their illogical and irrational belief systems as well as strong dislike of anything not decidedly conservative - including the Clintons and Obama - override rationality and logical thought processes.

 

Not evil - but strongly influenced by and admitted followers of trump's moral turpitude, ethical bankruptcy, greed, selfishness, racism, bigotry and prejudice - and plainly and obviously willing to shill and advocate for trump.

 

I  do not accept your interpretations just as you do not accept mine.

 

As for "working together" with those on the right - sure - just as soon as a majority of them have decided that immediately removing trump from office is of ultimate importance for the future well-being of the nation and world.


I never expect or insist that people accept my interpretations of things and I respect any difference of opinion so long as it's intelligent and not childishly abusive.  For that reason I  respect yours whether we agree or not.

I don't like Donald Trump, nor did I vote for him, but as long as someone who despises Trump or anyone else doesn't start calling ME stupid and evil, we can have a conversation.  But honestly, in terms of political discussion I don't see a lot of 'agree to disagree' from a lot of partisans on both sides.  It's like the Internet allows people to lose all their civility because they are safely at home and not within arms reach of someone they don't agree with.

 

As to the discussion, your first paragraph, while you tacitly admit "some" Trump supporters are not 'evil' you infer that you somehow know the character and motivations of at least the majority of his supporters.  And what makes it worse is that too many people  (and not you specifically) conflate "voters for..." and "supporters of..." and they are not at all the same.

 

I would say a lot of them only voted for Trump because they accepted the false premise that we have a "two-party system" and that Democrats and Republicans can only be those two parties.  That is patently untrue and the last election should show that.  Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the automatic winner the moment she entered the race but so many people (Independents AND Democrats) found her so repellent that millions of them 'jumped ship' and wholeheartedly supported Bernie Sanders.  And in my opinion, Sanders would have easily defeated Trump.

 

Trump himself as a candidate was almost an afterthought.  I believe he was elected mainly because he wasn't Clinton.  It surely wasn't for his record and experience, because he hadn't any.

 

As for the Democrat and Republican voters 'working together', it just won't happen.  Not until two things happen. 

First, the notion of good and evil must be completely  removed from political discourse.  ALL we ever see is the Media-controlled public face of the candidates and we do not know them as much as we think we do.  Remember, as so many people see Trump as 'evil' just as many saw Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton as 'evil' as well.

The second thing is that we must eliminate ALL political parties.  That will force the electorate to judge every candidate on his/her merits with an open, and more importantly INFORMED mind and not rely on if there's a 'D' or 'R' next to their names.

 

Those two things and perhaps one more.  Lose the whole "two-party" nonsense that the people have been indoctrinated to believe ever since childhood, and for generations..  We are not now, nor have ever been a two-party system.  Nothing in the Constitution or in any law in America does it say that and because of this slavish devotion to that system, we end up with people in the White House and Congress who have driven the country downward for the last 60 years or more.  And the country has not changed direction no matter which party controlled Congress or held the presidency.

 

You are of course free to disagree, but that's my position and I don't think I'll be commenting in this thread any longer.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
294
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
308
Views

Re: evil

308 Views
Message 3 of 14

 


@jims730656 wrote:

I agree that 'hate' can sometimes be subjective and is often in the minds of the individual, but the word 'evil' is also subjective and is interpreted by the individual.

 

Such as the comment that "all his supporters are evil too".  It not only ignores the idea that not ALL his supporters may be 'evil' people.  It also ignored the point that a lot of people who voted for him did so simply because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.

 

 


There are some - not as yet irrefutably proved to be anywhere near a majority among trump's supporters - who are not evil. 

 

What of those who would reduce/remove SS from those who would starve and die without it, and those who would remove medicare from those who would die without it - and fully realize the consequences of their intent?  

They are clearly and obviously evil - just as trump is similarly evil.

 

 

Most who voted for and support trump do not habitually and consistently reason logically and effectively - but instead "think" - "feel" - and have let their illogical and irrational belief systems as well as strong dislike of anything not decidedly conservative - including the Clintons and Obama - override rationality and logical thought processes.

 

Not evil - but strongly influenced by and admitted followers of trump's moral turpitude, ethical bankruptcy, greed, selfishness, racism, bigotry and prejudice - and plainly and obviously willing to shill and advocate for trump.

 

I  do not accept your interpretations just as you do not accept mine.

 

As for "working together" with those on the right - sure - just as soon as a majority of them have decided that immediately removing trump from office is of ultimate importance for the future well-being of the nation and world.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
308
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
358
Views

Re: evil

358 Views
Message 4 of 14

I agree that 'hate' can sometimes be subjective and is often in the minds of the individual, but the word 'evil' is also subjective and is interpreted by the individual.

 

Such as the comment that "all his supporters are evil too".  It not only ignores the idea that not ALL his supporters may be 'evil' people.  It also ignored the point that a lot of people who voted for him did so simply because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
358
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
372
Views

Re: evil

372 Views
Message 5 of 14

@gruffstuff wrote:

But the author is dead wrong on the idea that this is not a purely political issue

 

I couldn't disagree more, this is a moral issue that transcends politics. It doesn't matter that I'm not  Jew, Black, Indigenous American, or poor to be appalled by how people have been treated and are being treated now.

 

You have it backwards, politics do not define morals, morals define politics.

 

Morals also define the meaning of good and evil. 

 

History is written by the winners, no doubt if the Nazis had won World War II we would know a different history then we do now. However winning to losing doesn't change the morality of what happened, winning only changes who writes the history books.


Agreed - it's a moral issue - trump is evil.

 

Whether one hates or not and does or does not act based upon hate is a completely different issue that has no rightful place in this topic/issue of trump being evil.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
372
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
375
Views

Re: evil

375 Views
Message 6 of 14

@gruffstuff wrote:

But the author is dead wrong on the idea that this is not a purely political issue

 

I couldn't disagree more, this is a moral issue that transcends politics. It doesn't matter that I'm not  Jew, Black, Indigenous American, or poor to be appalled by how people have been treated and are being treated now.

 

You have it backwards, politics do not define morals, morals define politics.

 

Morals also define the meaning of good and evil. 

 

History is written by the winners, no doubt if the Nazis had won World War II we would know a different history then we do now. However winning to losing doesn't change the morality of what happened, winning only changes who writes the history books.


I would agree with much of your point, but your comment "You have it backwards, politics do not define morals, morals define politics." implies I said anything about morals.  The closest thing I said to that was that the emotion precedes the word.

You have have read that from someone else, but I never said that.

 

But again, I agree.  Morals dio indeed define politics (they don't these days, but they should).  They are the foundation of our Constitution and our laws.  But today, polititicians have the power, but not much morality..  But that didn't have a lot to do with my post anyway.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
375
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
384
Views

Re: evil

384 Views
Message 7 of 14

But the author is dead wrong on the idea that this is not a purely political issue

 

I couldn't disagree more, this is a moral issue that transcends politics. It doesn't matter that I'm not  Jew, Black, Indigenous American, or poor to be appalled by how people have been treated and are being treated now.

 

You have it backwards, politics do not define morals, morals define politics.

 

Morals also define the meaning of good and evil. 

 

History is written by the winners, no doubt if the Nazis had won World War II we would know a different history then we do now. However winning to losing doesn't change the morality of what happened, winning only changes who writes the history books.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
384
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
397
Views

Re: evil

397 Views
Message 8 of 14

@umbarch64 wrote:

@afisher wrote:

   To the previous responder:   I believe that you are incorrect and that a major group of individuals are working very hard to change the verbiage that generates such distrust.   

    those who promote language such as :   'they hate" , may be part of the problem and not part of the solution, IMHO.

 

    


Yeah...I agree with your IMHO.  From the definitions I find scattered around, hate means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  I doubt anyone agrees precisely on what 'hate' means.

Even Webster's doesn't quite 'get there'.    

 

The context in which it is used varies widely. 'Hate', as used,  could mean distaste OR off-the-wall, arm waving, foaming at the mouth, stroke imminent kind of thing.  The kind which most often results in a crime of passion such as murder when direct contact occurs. The person who truly hates would willingly and literally kill the object of his/her hatred IF afforded the opportunity. That's real hatred. Real hatred destroys the 'hater', making them into something far less than human from which few ever recover.  Hate is a lasting thing. Hate is a term far too loosely thrown around.

 

To aver that you 'know' that another human 'hates' is absurd.  No one can 'know' such a thing with certainty.  Absurd.  One person might say, 'I think that person hates [blah-blah-blah]' and that's about it. 

 

Since hate is a detestable thing all by itself, when a person says another person 'hates', in fact, the first accuser might just 'hate' the person he/she accuses of hating....else they wouldn't say crap like that.  That lethal tool cuts both ways, donchathink?


That couldn't possibly be more of a load of BS.  Do you think someone calling for the violent death of a stranger simply because of his elected office can remotely be defined as "distaste" for that person?  That's HATE, pure and simple.  When Hitler murdered millions of Jews, did he just find them to be 'distasteful'?

 

When minorities are targeted for violence or other forms of abuse, are the perpetrators arrested for violating a "distaste" crime?  No, and it's called a HATE CRIME for a reason!

 

And implying that someone who points out instances of hate are likely "haters" themselves is too immaturely ludicrous to even merit debate.

 

And I'd bet real money that the words "I hate..." have come from your own mouth, more than once.

 

I used the word ONCE, and in context out of a longer  matter related to politics, and the best you two can come up with is a rant about a commonly used word?

I welcome any and all intelligent discussion about what I said, and I still welcome it.  In fact, that's why I posted it, purely for the discussion.  But not some semi-coherent rant about one word.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
397
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
417
Views

Re: evil

417 Views
Message 9 of 14

@afisher wrote:

   To the previous responder:   I believe that you are incorrect and that a major group of individuals are working very hard to change the verbiage that generates such distrust.   

    those who promote language such as :   'they hate" , may be part of the problem and not part of the solution, IMHO.

 

    


Yeah...I agree with your IMHO.  From the definitions I find scattered around, hate means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  I doubt anyone agrees precisely on what 'hate' means.

Even Webster's doesn't quite 'get there'.    

 

The context in which it is used varies widely. 'Hate', as used,  could mean distaste OR off-the-wall, arm waving, foaming at the mouth, stroke imminent kind of thing.  The kind which most often results in a crime of passion such as murder when direct contact occurs. The person who truly hates would willingly and literally kill the object of his/her hatred IF afforded the opportunity. That's real hatred. Real hatred destroys the 'hater', making them into something far less than human from which few ever recover.  Hate is a lasting thing. Hate is a term far too loosely thrown around.

 

To aver that you 'know' that another human 'hates' is absurd.  No one can 'know' such a thing with certainty.  Absurd.  One person might say, 'I think that person hates [blah-blah-blah]' and that's about it. 

 

Since hate is a detestable thing all by itself, when a person says another person 'hates', in fact, the first accuser might just 'hate' the person he/she accuses of hating....else they wouldn't say crap like that.  That lethal tool cuts both ways, donchathink?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
417
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
426
Views

Re: evil

426 Views
Message 10 of 14

@afisher wrote:

   To the previous responder:   I believe that you are incorrect and that a major group of individuals are working very hard to change the verbage that generates such distrust.   

    those who promote language such as :   'they hate" , may be part of the problem and not part of the solution, IMHO.

 

    


Are you implying these people I speak of DON'T hate politicians from whichever side tney're not on?  You've never seen people wishing President Obama DEAD, and later the other sides wishing President Trump dead as well?

They are not just mildly irritated with these politicians from the party they don't belong to.  They HATE them and if you think by my merely pointing that out is somehow "part of the problem" you just aren't paying attention.

 

Did I say *I* personally hated them?

 

I used the word 'hate' because it's a perfectly acceptable legitimate and descriptive word and does in NO WAY promote hatred.  I'm pointing out the people who DO 'hate' and if you honestly think removing a perfectly legitimate word from the dictionary will put an end to the emotion it describes, you are not recognizing reality.  It's the emotion that precedes the word.  Not the other way around.

 

But I'm very curious about this "major group of individuals" you speak of who are trying very hard to change the "verbiage that generates such distrust" and I would like to see a link or some other factual information about this group so I can see what they do.  I'm also curious as to how much success they have had in their task.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
426
Views