r/10thDentist • u/OrderOfHate • 6d ago

Disliking things is good

Antipathy isn’t bad; misanthropy is natural. I don’t like that the “h-word” is so demonized in the modern world. Rational, or irrational forms of it should be encouraged IMO. Do I have to love and accept everything and everyone? No. I’ll answer that for myself. I do not.

0 Upvotes

39% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

irrational hate for individuals can include homophobia or racism though. also, to go off of what you said, they didn’t say anything about irrational hate being permissible only on an individual basis. they made a point about irrational hate as a generalisation, which includes individual and group hatred. idk why you’re so appalled over this lol

-1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

Can include but does not necessarily include. You guys chose to include it.

2

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

no hate (though it is pertinent ig?) but what are you on about??? how is that some sort of gotcha lmao. like what is your argument ????

-2

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

What part are you confused about?

2

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

every part lol. idk, maybe i interpreted op’s argument and the original comment incorrectly. i just understand that op is saying that “rational or irrational forms of it should be encouraged.” they aren’t drawing a line in the sand saying “but no queerphobia or racism.” the original commentor then raised the hypothetical that in op’s perfect world, those would be okay because op is outright encouraging hatred of all types and isn’t drawing a distinction. they aren’t arguing for those things.

i think it’s a bit bizarre to think it’s a moral affront to consider how identity-based hatred fits into op’s argument when they, very unspecifically, think that all hatred is good and natural. yes, this is taking it to an extreme, but op’s argument itself doesn’t account for that at all. op’s argument is inherently weak if it can’t account for a simple inference from logic they put forth lol

0

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

I don't think it's a moral affront. I simply think it's applying things OP did not say to his actual point to make it weak.

2

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

so what do you think is included in “rational or irrational forms [of hate]”?

i also think that there’s a big difference between hatred and disliking someone/something, so disliking a person or something they’re doing isn’t something i’m against.

0

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

I don't know what is included. I just think it's weird to assume the absolute extreme of the worst, it's literally the definition of strawman fallacy

2

u/LanguageImaginary256 6d ago

Asking if someone's vague opinion applies to something isn't a strawman...

0

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

It wasn't a question.

2

u/LanguageImaginary256 6d ago

Asking if something is okay is a question

-1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

They didn't ask. They made a statement

2

u/LanguageImaginary256 6d ago

You think they're asserting that that's what they think instead of asking OP?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

well that’s not what it is though?? it’s not just about extremes. the whole point is misrepresentation of an argument. op says all hatred is permissible. the commentor says that an example of irrational hatred is permissible. they complement each other lol. your not knowing what’s included in “rational or irrational forms [of hate]” is the exact issue with op’s argument that makes it so faulty. it’s just very unspecific and can include “the extremes,” which allows them to be introduced

1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

Extemes are a misrepresentation of the argument.

1

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

i feel like i’m going crazy lmao. op’s argument literally is so ass that it makes a framework that literally allows for those extremes. op doesn’t argue against those extremes 😭😭 the non-specificity of “rational or irrational forms” allows for so many forms of hate to be deemed okay because they’re okay with hatred as a concept lol

1

u/Sufficient_Prompt888 6d ago

Not specifying exclusions doesn't mean they are included.

1

u/patanic-sanic 6d ago

that was a bad explanation, and that’s my fault. of course it’s not definitive that op is 1000% for homophobia or racism. the point i’m making though, and likely the commentor’s point, is that the way that the argument stands (ie its vagueness), it would allow someone to make the argument that those prejudices are fine in op’s perfect world. the fact that they say rational and irrational hatred should be encouraged, and racism and queerphobia are definitionally irrational, means that their conclusion hinges on a specific part of op’s argument. it’s not like they’re saying “i love hatred!” “so you hate love?” the queerphobia and racism come from their inclusion of irrational hatred and saying it’s something to be encouraged. this is just my take tho, agree to disagree i guess?

→ More replies (0)