Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.

Precisely the answers I wish I had given. Danke.

The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Definition of Assumption;
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof.
vocabulary.com/dictionary/assumption

Point is why should I defend myself based on another’s assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.

Agree.

The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also ‘unproven and illusory’, given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person’s own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person’s belief in the existence of something outside a person’s consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the “likelihood” or “probability” of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn’t harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people’s consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Again, because you made an assertion.

If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.

Did you not read that agnostics and even other atheists may expect justiication for your statement in a philosophical discussion setting? The evil of theists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. We were talking about an ontological issue. With attendant epistemological issues. What evil acts has philosophical graffitte committed?

Agree.
[/quote]
Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.

You are conflating too many points here.

Note,

  1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
  2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
  3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being
  4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?

1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
The existence of human beings is easy prove via empirical testings.

2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
There are epistemological issues re existence Other Minds.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Despite the contentions, I believe the supporting arguments for the existence of other minds
are more convincing than the skeptics’ view.

However, there are loads of research from the psychology and other philosophical perspective to support the existence and knowledge of minds/consciousness other than one’s own. Note

It is not exactly easy, but it is not impossible to prove and convince the existence of other minds as above.

3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being.
I have argued God is ultimately and has to be a non-empirical being, i.e. an ontological God. There is no way a non-empirical ontological God can be proven with empirical methods.

If anyone claims their God is an empirical being then bring proofs to show God is an empirical being like a human being or any other mind-independent objects?

4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?
There are no evidence a non-empirical objects has a ‘mind’ like a human mind or even those of animals.
Therefore God as non-empirical cannot have a mind like a human mind.

Against the above points, there is no way you can prove God exists.

My onus is I have exposed the implication of an assumption is his assertion.

Note the sequence,

  1. Joe assert there is a God.
  2. Then only can Jim asserts there is no God.

In the above case Joe’s assertion takes priority and thus Joe has the onus to provide proofs for his claim. There is no priority and onus on Jim to prove his claim in this particular issue.

However I agree if Jim decide to take the initiative to kill off Joe’s claim, then Jim has the onus to prove his case.
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Note the focus should be on the primary claimant re God exists, not the secondary negating claim.

However, as an initiative and mentioned above;
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Greatest I Am,

What purpose, positive purpose, does hate serve? It is a very strong emotion which can get way out of hand and do a lot of destruction.

Can you give me an example of when and how hate is good. For instance, a scenario?

By taking a phrase like Freedom of Speech and equating it with a total lack of responsibility and consciousness toward whomever it addresses.

In other words, anything goes even if at some point it leads to the destruction of millions of Jews or African Americans or mentally ill or incapacitated children…et cetera. We just NEVER learn do we?

God is not only dead but never existed in the first place.

We cannot stop a volcano from erupting but we can put a muzzle on lack of consciousness and stupidity.
I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.

How would censorship lead to self-discipline? (wouldn’t it undercut the possibility to some degree?) Can one not express anger and think clearly?

Karpel Tunnel

This may not be a good example but think of the discipline of a time out that the parent gives the child for wrong and crazy behavior as a censorship. Do you not think that after enough of them, the child would come to some consciousness and self-discipline? Of course, it might also depend on the individual child.

Hate speech can be very contagious and before anyone knows what is happening, there is the mob, there is the unthinking Herd, there is the fanatic, there is the person just waiting for the excuse to kill someone or beat someone up. Hate speech can become so volatile. You hear some person on a tirade shouting ugly racist remarks about Jews and other anti-Semetics listening and become enraged. Suddenly someone spots a Jewish person and that person becomes physically attacked to an extreme degrees. It could be an adult or a child.

You can also think of the censorship of it as the water used to put a fire out before it causes damage.

Would that not depend on the individual? Is a mob or a racist capable of self-discipline and clear thinking?

Sure. Someone who is stable, pretty well balanced, is aware of their feelings and can be in control of them and who knows what is at stake and realizes that there can be a far better way to achieve something.

But seriously, can an actual hate speech express anger and clear thinking without becoming volatile? What could go wrong there, given the right (or wrong) moment? This is not a love speech, it is a hate speech. Humans are imperfect, faulty, our emotions more than rise to the moment also in the wrong way.

I think we need a definition of hate speech.

I don’t think a category based on an emotion is a good idea.

I don’t think the current climate regarding speech is a good one. All sorts of things are being called hate speech when they may or may not have some anger behind thevm but do not seem to me racist, anti-semitic, etc.

I don’t see censorship working very well.

My kid says something racist, we’d have a talk. I don’t want to train him not to share his thoughts with me.

I do realize that asking for a definition is an easy request. I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.

I think these quotes tend towards limiting censorship.

I agree.

We present love and hate as opposites, often, but it seems to me they are often connected. Something I love is threatened, i may feel hate. Is it OK for Churchill to have hate in his speech against Hitler? MLK certainly focused on love, but in this last speech, the one before he was killed, you can hear the rage at what he was encountering. Of course hate can go wrong, but a loving speech can go wrong also. Telling us to love something that is damaging. A speech that glosses over. A speech where an ugly, hateful person presents themselves as loving to set up their opponent.

I think there is something wrong headed about focusing on emotion. And by the way, I think everyone should be nervous about that focus. Because once hou outlaw hatred in reaction, you make it easier for tyranny.

Because once those in power can damn y ou for reacting angrily to what they are doing, they are freer to do what they want.

The very term itself gives me chills.

Karpel Tunnel

I am aware that there may be at least a few. I am using the phrase hate speech to denote INTENTION, where the intent is to incite people to anger, rage, hatred AND to the point where the outcome and consequences of that speech could only result in the inevitable - destruction, murder, et cetera. Hitler and the Nazi’s’ false propaganda, white supremacist’s speech which could incite people to murder African Americans and hang slaves - back then, hate speech which turns every good Muslim into a terrorist. I think that you get the idea.

Why not? Hatred is built on emotion, is it not? Even if you would call hatred a mood, it is built on emotion and those kind of speeches are so capable of evolving into quite a conflagration.

I suppose that I can agree with you in part here BUT I think that it has to be quite obvious when a speech is anti-semetic or racist or against gay people, ad continuum.

I realize that like everything there are many gray areas.

Bring yourself back to the Nazi regime. Perhaps there could not have been a law on censorship then, but what if there had been and it had succeeded. Would all of those people murdered because of the Holocaust ~men, women and CHILDREN ~~would they have survived the war, barring the bombs, if they had not had all of the Lies, Hatred, out-of-control emotions thrown at them? Would children have been shot in the head by Naziis if censorship was the thing back then?!

That is a good thing. It is too easy a thing, I think, to be biased/prejudiced, to become infected by that so-called virus. It is all around us so just a simple thing like an accidental bump by someone, someone who we feel is not like us might offset us. Adults are not even sometimes consciously aware of when they are pushing the envelope so of course children would not be.

It is an easy request but not necessarily easy to answer.

I look forward to it. Let us not forget that hatred can be insidiously subtle.

[b]It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.[/b]

That was my signature long before I entered this thread. It was kind of a reminder to me to try to keep an open mind and that the questions are at least as important than the answers, sometimes more so? How much it is working is debatable. :mrgreen:

As to your response, at first glance, that may be possible. At second glance, I will have to think more on it.
I might suggest that the quote tells us to try to see both sides of that coin very carefully, both sides, just as carefully.
Censorship would have to be well thought out logically, yes, and with compassion - to do no harm or what does the least harm.

Hmmm…then again, at the end of the day, there would be that so-called HATE SPEECH (unless you could think of another word or phrase for it) which has as its main INTENTION the fight toward raising human consciousness against people like the white supremacists and neo-naziis, the terrorists, the despots, among others, in a constructive, not a destructive way, where lives are physically destroyed.

But then again, even that would not be so easy, right, since there are always those fanatics looking and waiting for an excuse to destroy. There are really no easy answers where human beings are involved. lol

In practical terms it is very hard to censor based on intention. If we talk about the consequences, then a lot of politicians speechs can and do lead to destruction, but they need not contain much in the way of hate or anger, however they set down reality or ‘reality’ in such a way that it leads to death and destruction. I don’t know what to look for with your definition.

I don’t mean that one cannot have a category based on emotions, one can. What I meant was it’s a bad idea in the context of human communication. 1) we have to determine intent, which is hard to do 2) strong anger (hatred) is a natural reaction to things like oppression. I wouldn’t want to say people cannot scream out their anger at a protest, for example, or in an angry letter signed by many about a policy. 3) You can create documents that are calm and reasoned or ‘reasoned’ that are based on hate and have horrible intentions, but which contain nothing which demonstrates hate or horrible intentions. And I am not sure that forcing everyone to be Machievellian about this helps.

So, it is hate only at minority groups? How do we determine if an attack on Israel’s policies is anti-semitic?

There was censorship, but it was run by the Nazis. The upside of the Nazis being as up front as they were - though they were also really quite cagey about what they intended and meant about a lot of things - is that it was clearer who they were and what they might do. The rest of the world did not react in time, but some people were convinced, like Churchill, I am sure in part based on what the Nazis were saying. It might have been harder to get people to prepare to fight the Nazis had they been ever cagier about who they were.

Sure, but my point was: that is not putting my child in time out. Time out might get my kid to be silent around me in the future, but it isn’t getting at the issues.

Hatred can be justified.

Karpel Tunnel

True, I understand this. But the reality soon becomes clear and evident and this is where censorship ought to step in, in my book. But I suppose that it might have to be the real exception to the rule or we begin to slide toward that slippery slope of a dictatorship.

Let us say that Hitler was alive today in 2018 as he was on August 13, 1920 when he gave his 1st major anti-Semitic speech “Why we are against the Jews” but as an American. What would this reveal to you?

Jews, he said, could not be judged as other men. They were creatures of alien and dangerous blood. doomed to corrupt everything they touched. The only defense against this peril was to seize the evil (the Jews) by the roots and to exterminate it root and branch. To attain our aim we should stop at nothing, even if we must join forces with the Devil."
The Holocaust, Hitler and Nazi Germany
Linda Jacobs

A bat is beautiful compared to the above ugliness.
(or at least cute when gazed on for a little while)
[tab]download.jpg[/tab]

georgelakoff.com/2017/09/14/wha … te-speech/

[b]I have been asked what hate speech is. It is not exactly hard to detect.

Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class. Typical examples are immorality, intellectual inferiority, criminality, lack of patriotism, laziness, untrustworthiness, greed, and attempts or threats to dominate their “natural superiors.”[/b]

[b]The method of defamation typically includes:

Salient exemplars — that is, using highly rare and very ugly individual examples that have been sensationalized by the media and taking them as applying to the whole class. Examples: Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.[/b]

More examples of hate speech.
kristinbsse.atavist.com/hate-sp … cial-media

[b]Penny Sparrow

Phumba Zondi[/b]

I think that the words in many cases would determine the intent, would you not agree with that?

Oh, I can certainly agree with you here but I do not consider this to be an example of hate speech. These are just people speaking out in defense of their human rights. On the other hand, I may be wrong here.
A hate speech does not necessarily have to be a negative thing as long as it stays within the parameters of not enticing people to violence.

I would not go along with censoring these kind of hate speeches.

The hate speeches of Penny Sparrow and Phumba Zondi is what I was addressing and the definitions by George Lakoff.

Can you give me an example of this from history?

No, gossiping can be hateful/full of hate and can do a lot of deliberate damage to the reputations of those it is directed towards.

Bullying is hateful and incites others to cause physical or psychic harm.

I would think that when the individual[s] are the MAIN focus of the attack and not the policies. I may be wrong here but I think that that would be quite clear, right?
Words and phrases need to be examined.

Why? Can you give me an example of where it would work and where it would not work?

phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.a … ements.htm

You spoke of your child saying something racist in the scenario. It would be obvious to me that included in that time out would be a verbal teaching, getting the child to see the light. Afterwards would come the silence.

I can agree with this albeit it would be like beauty being in the eye of the beholder in a sense.
Hatred may be an emotional uproaring or a very calm emotion beneath but I think it can be seen as logical under particular circumstances (if that made any sense to you).
Christians are told to love the enemy, to not hate those who hate you or even inflict great harm on you. But is that even logical? We are human beings before we are anything else. We have a strong instinct to survive and toward personal freedom - unless, unfortunately, it has been deadened by constant abuse or the Big Lie, whatever that particular Lie may be. I wonder how many wonderful, I mean really wonderful, Christians have actually suppressed or “repressed” the hatred done to them?

I apologize for the delay.

It seems like, then, hate speech is not based on an emotion, but on what sorts of classifying and judging it does. It could be made in fear. It could be made coldly, clinically. Again, I think it is wrong to classify it based on emotion. Once you do that you open the door to censorship when people respond to abuse of power, the unjust killing of their children, political lies and much else.

I am still not clear that censorship is the way to go, but regardless I see no reason to classify it based on emotions.

Not at all. I think hate can come with a smile. It can distract, pretend to be rational and calm. It can imply things but not state them. Context often determines the intent, not the words. When they are used, what is not said or responded to, what is implicit given the context.

Then I think we need another name, because they often are pissed off, even hateful.

The violence of pharma/psychiatry against emotions and those who have them. The way Monsanto reacts to the concerns of people who distrust government oversight of industry and gm products - they often call out their opponents as emotional, then prsent research they themselves generated to paint themselves as rational.

Tecumseh was in a meeting with some general who kept talking about how violent and irrational the native americans were. So Tecumseh slid closer to the general. The general slid away on a bench and Tecumseh just kept sliding toward him, getting inside his personal space. Finally the general exclaimed in rage. Tecumseh said something like ‘Barbarian, primitive’

I meant more…is it OK against whites or men or whomever is or is perceived to be the dominant group?

INdividual politicians would be fine in my book. Their acts, policies, statements…

Sure, in the European country I live in now if anyone questions immigration levels, they are labeled racist. It can cost you your teaching position. IOW, for example, there cannot be anyone concerned for economic reasons. If you have aproblem with immigration levels, you are racist and your position will not be printed or broadcast. The same goes for anyone uncomfortalbe with rapid societal changes brought about by immigration and the poor integration here. And people who were critical of Islam were treated like racists, which makes no sense. Islam is a belief system. It’s like treating criticism of the republicans or nazis or democrats as if that is racism. You should be able to say that a religion is a pernicious ideology without being treated as a racist. Other ideologies get treated this way all the time. It is fine to treat fascism or communism t his way, except to the followers of course, because they disagree. But seeing ideologies and belief systems as problematic to dangerous to horrible is not like racism, but it is treated this way.

The result of the censorship and treating all this as hate speech…

The party against immigration is now either one or two, but sometimes is the largest party in the country. Treating everyone as if they should be censored, including racist opinoins and opinions that may or may not have some facet of racism in them as taboo HAS NOT WORKED. There needed to be a public dialogue, where even racist ideas could come out and be faced. And the racism of immigrants- against each other, against the native population. In my work with immigrants I could see that many were comfortable and certain in their racism in ways Europeans tend not to be. To many Arabs it was a given that blacks and gypsies were inferior. To many in these groups the natives here are cold fascists. This also needs to be aired.

Keeping all this off the table eliminates the ability to actually get to change.

You’'ll need to make an argument here. I know Hitler said many terrible things.

I don’t see the point of the time out and silence. Enforced silence. And that verbal teaching MUST include hearing why the child thinks what they think. Shutting them up, iow censoring them, is not useful. Unless we just want them to behave around us and not change learn be challenged, etc.

Logical, maybe, damaging as a rule, absolutely. One of the most damaging ideas we’ve gotten.

There is a lot of self-abuse involved in following the NT and a lot of potential abuse of others in following the OT.

No problem

Karpel Tunnel

[b]I have been asked what hate speech is. It is not exactly hard to detect.

Hate speech defames, belittles, or dehumanizes a class of people on the basis of certain inherent properties — typically race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Hate speech attributes to that class of people certain highly negative qualities taken to be inherent in members of the class. Typical examples are immorality, intellectual inferiority, criminality, lack of patriotism, laziness, untrustworthiness, greed, and attempts or threats to dominate their “natural superiors.”[/b]

[b]The method of defamation typically includes:

Salient exemplars — that is, using highly rare and very ugly individual examples that have been sensationalized by the media and taking them as applying to the whole class. Examples: Trump’s racist attacks on Latinos and Muslims, attempting to stereotype all of them and smear entire classes of people on the basis of a handful of individual cases.[/b]

I am not sure how you are using the phrase based on. If you mean arising from then I cannot agree with you here - at least not in part. Wouldn’t you agree that any kind of hate speech has its genesis in some kind of human experience/reality which is seen as negative, to say the least, and which causes emotion? I suppose though that you could also be correct. Someone who is not prone to being emotional, who is basically a cool cucumber, has a logical and reasonable mind, could approach it in the way which you suggest.

I tend to see fear as a strong emotion and it can be a valuable human tool albeit also a detrimental destructive one.

Perhaps you and I are both right. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Censorship, for me, would be the only way to go, when people start shouting things like “hang them, burn them, shoot them”. We all have a right to our thoughts and emotions but we do not have the right to act on them in a way that could harm or kill others unless in self-defense naturally. Words can be really powerful in both positive and negative ways. I do not know if you understand me a little there.

Yes, the psychopath, pretender, actor. I do understand what you say here and I can agree with you. Trying to read between the lines does not always make something clear. I might say that both logic and intuition enter in in discerning hate in certain circumstances. But could that, at the same time, not mean that below the surface there is strong emotion being concealed?

I suppose that at second glance, I can see your point. I think that what is going on within my mind is a willingness to see the logic and justice within what these people are doing - their personal freedoms ARE being uprooted and denied them. But I suppose at the same time, as an example, the Southern racist[s] at the time of the riots and the marches, also thought that their personal freedoms were being denied, when for example, African Americans were fighting for the same rights as the white man. But there is a difference. The racist does not see things in a true light - only in the light of what he wants to hold onto, so-called white privilege, white supremacy, fear and hatred and continuing to set back the African American and denying him/her what they were always due - no more, no less, than any other human being - all men are created equal insofar as their inalienable rights are concerned.

lol Good for Tecumseh. So very many human beings with whom I would have loved to sit down and have a conversation with. Most of us are capable of things which we might never have dreamed of doing when pushed too far but we do not want to accept this. We believe that we are so good - our halos would never fall off, would never become tarnished.
That is the other side of us on a coin - we revert back to being barbarians and primitives.

I think you posed a difficult question to answer ~ at least to me it is. If you are speaking strictly about gossiping as discussion as venting, as feedback against real injustice which is happening and how to plan legitimate pro-active movements, TO FIGHT EVIL, that CAN be very fruitful, and subjectively speaking, how can one do otherwise?

After glancing at my quote again, it could also refer to and be AGAINST people like the Naziis, racists, anti-Semetics and White Supremacy groups, et cetera so I suppose to my way of thinking, one would have to ask “What is the greatest Good” ~ if that made sense to you ~~ like Nietzche said: “Love is beyond good and evil”. Sometimes one needs even four or five glances or even more.

.
Now i can kind of understand how you feel about censorship. It is kind of like living in East Berlin behind the Wall but on the opposite side of that coin if I understand your meaning. Those who question too many immigrants coming in can pay a price (non-monetary). Or am I wrong?

A person does not have to be a racist in order to see how impractical and even dangerous it can be to feel so much humane compassion and sympathy without any thought toward the economy, the state of the nation, consequences to national security. Just opening up those flood gates and allowing anyone and everyone in is akin to allowing strangers to dinner but at the same time allowing your own family to go hungry and to be at risk. Atlas shrugs now and at some point he may just collapse under the weight of it all. His knees already buckle.

These are just my unintelligible musings here as I am ignorant (never having learned much at all in the first place about Islam and ISIS certainly does muddy the waters for Islam where there is already so much ignorance/misunderstanding/misinterpretation about it.
I have no idea who these people who are critical of Islam are as you stated. I have what may be an absurd question here. Is it possible that some Muslims do think of their selves in a sense as a separate race? I do realize that Islam is a belief system just as Judaism is but perhaps for these two religions there is much more of spiritual way of life than let us say for Christians. Can this be why speaking against Islam can be considered to be racist for those Muslims who may have that perception? Perception is everything and does form our beliefs and shapes our realities. I do not mean to muddy the waters here even more and I am walking down a very dark alley.

What we have no knowledge of and misunderstand we can fear and what we can fear we tend to fill in the gaps with all kinds of imaginings that the mind can conjure up without questioning and investigating.

Could you NOT see that there are some who are against Islam because they ARE racists and that the racist mindset is quite capable of revealing itself?

Do you think that any of the above is conceivable or valid?

Well, the unemotional logical part of me can certainly agree with this. Everyone needs to be heard. That is freedom of speech but I AM of the mind that …lol…I stopped for a moment because I have a conflict of goods here. I recognize that all voices ought to be heard but at the same time when and where does a sense of responsibility toward freedom of speech enter in? Can we have the freedom to say whatever we choose ~~ is that necessarily part of our freedom in a democracy, even for a racist? As you can see, it is a gray area for me. But i can see that it is a very slippery slope. If we deny some a voice, before you know it,all voices can eventually be silenced…maybe.

I wonder why. We do see this in certain particular groups or nationalities against each other (not to mention any). Can it be because they actually sub-consciously identify more with one another - like “likes repel”? Or the survival of the fittest/the fight to determine who is the fittest and who is the weakest?

True. If we do not get to air our grievances, they fester like the leprosy of old.
But how simple can it be what with all of the anger, hatred, chauvinism, racism, hard-heartedness, fear of opening up and letting go? What kind of a human being[s] can mediate all of this? Sarek? lol

I agree with you here, Karpel Tunnel. I am all for open communication and allowing the child his/her voice. Suppressing it would not change it. At the same time, do you not at times give yourself “quiet time” to reflect on what you have heard or learned?

Where is the logic in that for you? I can see what a waste of time it could be in hating someone simply because they hate you but…

True ~ masochism, mysogeny, homophobia, xenophobia, not to mention living in a fanciful matrix. lol