Is it irrational to hate President Trump?

Happy_Killbot

@Dee We don't have the same fundamental conception of what rationality is.

Rationality is when you think about things in accordance with logic and reason. Emotions, however, do not come from logic and reason, they are evolved traits which we have for pragmatic purpose in order to aid our survival. For this reason, any thought that stems from emotions I can not consider to be rational, or as ZeusAres42 says "arational" Which technically isn't a word, but the implied meaning is perhaps more accurate than just stating irrational meaning in absence of.

Deep neural networks are not programmed, at least not in the classical sense. You put them in an environment and the just go, pun intended.

That fact is that AI's are capable of making rational decisions, which can be observed in their tendency to reliably beat people at various games and now in professional work. This happens in the absence of emotion. (unless deliberately added in)

This does not disprove that human logic and emotions are tied together, but I was never trying to disprove that.

What it does disprove, is that logic and emotion must ALWAYS be tied, and thus it is not a universal truth that applies to everything, such that the existence of emotion guarantees rationality, or the existence of rationality guarantees emotion.

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

I’ve stated repeatedly reason and emotions work in tandem one cannot be rational if one is not emotional 

Sorry, but repeating something ad nauseam won't make it any more true... There is no scientific consensus on "rationality" so saying that science says X is incorrect... Who's correct, Weber, Simon, Brant, Kant, Mosterin? They all disagree on many points yet are respected figures in their field...

Can you tell me why it is rational to dislike the flavour of chocolate? Why do some people really hate rap and others love it, what is fundamentally rational about that? 

Now, because an action X is based on an emotion, doesn't entail that this action is therefore irrational, that's certainly not what I'm saying and probably not what Happy_Killbot is saying either but I can't speak for him... 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***We don't have the same fundamental conception of what rationality is.

Rationality is when you think about things in accordance with logic and reason. 

Yes which you now agreed is impossible without emotions as you did say you didn’t disagree with my piece on patient Eliott didn’t you ?

You said .....  “I never said the science was wrong”  right , and the science proved there is no reason without emotion remember? 

****Emotions, however, do not come from logic and reason, they are evolved traits which we have for pragmatic purpose in order to aid our survival. For this reason, any thought that stems from emotions I can not consider to be rational, 

There you go again ignoring what’s uncomfortable let’s try again ......

DE. ERICH FROMM, in a recent report to the Journal of the American Home Economics Association, discussed the two kinds of hatred which he claims exist. One is what he calls the “counterpoint of life“. It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.”

**** or as ZeusAres42 says "arational" Which technically isn't a word, but the implied meaning is perhaps more accurate than just stating irrational meaning in absence of.

You’re wrong .....again ..... arational

/eɪˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: arational

1. not based on or governed by logical reasoning.

***Deep neural networks are not programmed, at least not in the classical sense. You put them in an environment and the just go, pun intended.

Neural networks are designed to recognise patterns , you said AI’s have “thoughts” I’m still waiting on your proofs 

****That fact is that AI's are capable of making rational decisions, which can be observed in their tendency to reliably beat people at various games and now in professional work. This happens in the absence of emotion. (unless deliberately added in)

Computers don’t “think” - they mindlessly follow rules that the (human) computer programmer sets out for them to follow.

***/This does not disprove that human logic and emotions are tied together, but I was never trying to disprove that.

It’s been proven a long time ago that they are tied together 

***What it does disprove, is that logic and emotion must ALWAYS be tied, 

It must regarding humans , what a sly way you have of attempting to totally change the debate into one one AI which you claim has thoughts , still waiting on your proofs?

****and thus it is not a universal truth that applies to everything, such that the existence of emotion guarantees rationality, or the existence of rationality guarantees emotion.

Again another straw man as that’s a claim I never made 

YeshuaBought

@Dee I will pray for you. i honestly hope Jesus gives you peace in your heart. i am sorry you feel the need to hate me, but i don't think it is necessary. I think this might be a misunderstanding, over some stuff. I wish you well. 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ;

There you go again ignoring what’s uncomfortable let’s try again ......

DE. ERICH FROMM, in a recent report to the Journal of the American Home Economics Association, discussed the two kinds of hatred which he claims exist. One is what he calls the “counterpoint of life“. It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.”

, you are just going to make the same appeal to authority fallacy after I already called you out on it?

Real smooth.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

***We don't have the same fundamental conception of what rationality is.

Rationality is when you think about things in accordance with logic and reason. 

Yes which you now agreed is impossible without emotions as you did say you didn’t disagree with my piece on patient Eliott didn’t you ?

You said .....  “I never said the science was wrong”  right , and the science proved there is no reason without emotion remember? 

The science did not prove there is no reason without emotion, that is your emotion/belief/values-based interpretation. It just proves that in the human brain that there is intricate connection between the amygdala and and the pre-frontal cortex. This is the reason I bring up AI, because it is not a human brain, so the science doesn't apply to it, and the fundamental assumption that "there is no reason without emotion" is false.

***Deep neural networks are not programmed, at least not in the classical sense. You put them in an environment and the just go, pun intended.

Neural networks are designed to recognise patterns , you said AI’s have “thoughts” I’m still waiting on your proofs 

****That fact is that AI's are capable of making rational decisions, which can be observed in their tendency to reliably beat people at various games and now in professional work. This happens in the absence of emotion. (unless deliberately added in)

Computers don’t “think” - they mindlessly follow rules that the (human) computer programmer sets out for them to follow.

***/This does not disprove that human logic and emotions are tied together, but I was never trying to disprove that.

It’s been proven a long time ago that they are tied together 

***What it does disprove, is that logic and emotion must ALWAYS be tied, 

It must regarding humans , what a sly way you have of attempting to totally change the debate into one one AI which you claim has thoughts , still waiting on your proofs?

I would certainly agree that computer thought is not like human thought, but it is thinking none the less. It could also be argued that humans are just mindlessly carrying out orders placed there by evolution. Deep neural networks do a little bit more than just recognize patterns, although that is the most common application. They almost always do so in the absence of emotions or brains. I fail to see why thought and rationality should be sub-strait dependent, and only apply to humans. Computers thoughts are based on symbol manipulation, which is very different from human intelligence, which is based on association. Just because thought isn't like human thought doesn't mean it isn't thought, or that it is irrational. In fact, if anything it is more rational.

****and thus it is not a universal truth that applies to everything, such that the existence of emotion guarantees rationality, or the existence of rationality guarantees emotion.

Again another straw man as that’s a claim I never made 

If you think this is a straw man then we agree.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Right ,so Neuroscience is wrong because I cited a famous case to demonstrate your stupidity .....got ya 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Yes I know you’re a science denier .....home schooled were you?

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

You're being irrational now... Take a break, go take a walk or something, you're too emotional...  

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

****Sorry, but repeating something ad nauseam won't make it any more true... There is no scientific consensus on "rationality" so saying that science says X is incorrect... Who's correct, Weber, Simon, Brant, Kant, Mosterin? They all disagree on many points yet are respected figures in their field...

Denying neuroscience will not make it any less valid , I never said or made the case on a consensus on “rationality “

****Can you tell me why it is rational to dislike the flavour of chocolate? Why do some people really hate rap and others love it, what is fundamentally rational about that? 

Can you tell 

Nice swerve , what you initially said was ..... *Loving or hating the taste of something cannot be "rational", as no reasoning whatsoever is involved” 

So again hating the taste of excrement cannot be rational , thats your contention .....do tell

****Now, because an action X is based on an emotion, doesn't entail that this action is therefore irrational, that's certainly not what I'm saying and probably not what Happy_Killbot is saying either but I can't speak for him... 

That’s exactly what he’s saying as in a hatred of Trump or Hitler is “irrational “ as it’s based on emotion 

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen ;

***** You're being irrational now...

Ahh we have the arbitrator on what’s “rational” .....great 

 ****Take a break,

Thank you for that 

****go take a walk or something,

I’ve opted for the “something” 

*****you're too emotional

Everyone is too emotional it’s called being human 

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@Dee ;

I agree with this picture. Where did you get it?

Plaffelvohfen

Dee said:

@Plaffelvohfen ;

***** You're being irrational now...

Ahh we have the arbitrator on what’s “rational” .....great 

 ****Take a break,

Thank you for that 

****go take a walk or something,

I’ve opted for the “something” 

*****you're too emotional

Everyone is too emotional it’s called being human 

Never would have thought you would need one but seems like you're asking for one so here it is...

Dee

@YeshuaBought

**** I agree with this picture. Where did you get it?

Hey maybe you can blow him .......but you’re a double adaptor r aren’t you?

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I'm not saying neuroscience is wrong. You just think I am because you do not understand my argument. The case says nothing to the base argument, the fact that humans use the logical parts of our brains to justify emotions does not mean that the base emotions themselves are logical.

Let's consider this from the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology. The first animals were simple and lacked brains. Then latter, evolved simple neural systems that helped coordinate functions inside the organism. Those systems eventually became sensory organs and systems, that helped the animal find food and avoid predators. As it got more complex, other capabilities and functions formed on top of the base system, leading to all sorts of complex behaviors. Of these behaviors, social ones became pronounced, and eventually humans evolved which had much more neural capacity, gaining the ability to have abstract thoughts, among them capacity to reason and use logic to come to previously unknown capabilities.

The key take away is that everything builds up from the bottom here. more advanced capabilities will form on top of more primitive ones.

You probably agree with all of that, anyone who accepts that evolution is true probably does.

Now my argument: "the base emotions themselves are not reasonable" doesn't deny any of this. The evidence doesn't suggest that this isn't true, in fact it strongly supports it. We evolved to survive and reproduce, so our emotions serve this evolutionary purpose.

Evolution is of course, not rational, it just happened because conditions were right. It just is that way. No one directed it to happen, nothing intended for it to happen, it just did.

Because evolution has given you an inclination to not eat feces or like Donald J Trump as president of the US, does not mean these things are rational. Emotions are irrational or arational, which is a word in the Oxford dictionary but not Merriam-Webster,  but under no circumstance are they ever rational.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

Happy_Killbot

@YeshuaBought Internet. There are actually tons like it in the same style for all the major fallacies.

smoothie

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

**** I agree with this picture. Where did you get it?

Hey maybe you can blow him .......but you’re a double adaptor r aren’t you?

What is with you today damn

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

**** I agree with this picture. Where did you get it?

Hey maybe you can blow him .......but you’re a double adaptor r aren’t you?

your behavior is innapropriate, and out of control. I am reporting you for abuse, again. I am also prepared to post screenshots on sitejabber.com so please do continue. I don't know how old everyone is, and I sincerly hope you don't mean what you seem to be saying, but if you do, the abuse will not be tolerated. Reported for abuse, and i am sending screenshots, to the right people.

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

Never had you down as a cry baby all because you cannot defend your piece of nonsense ......

*****Loving or hating the taste of something cannot be "rational", as no reasoning whatsoever is involved” 

So again hating the taste of excrement cannot be rational , thats your contention .....do tell

Ouch 

Dee

@smoothie

Thats it join the mob they need your help 

Dee

@YeshuaBought

Still stalking me .....What bit of Christianity do you follow?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***** there are actually tons like it in the same style for all the major fallacies.

you and your History “ teacher brother should give it a browse sometime ......

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought Internet. There are actually tons like it in the same style for all the major fallacies.

Awesome sauce. Have you been to youlogicalfallacyis.com yet? That has articles on all of the logical fallacies.

Happy_Killbot

Well F***

This was just supposed to be my rather straightforward opinion that emotions don't really have anything to do with rational thought, but apparently when you decide to defend the idea that emotions and reason are inseparable, you turn into a screaming ape child and forget how to think reasonably altogether.

I have just finished reading the book "A warning by Anonymous" which is an inside look at the Trump presidency, and a book I think all prospective voters in the 2020 election should read.

Near the end of the book the mysterious author talks about "Trump Derangement syndrome" Where the person becomes unable to think rationally because of their extreme hatred felt toward Trump.

It is now my theory that @Dee may be diagnosed with TDS,(not a real diagnosis) and that the position that hating him is rational was a classic case of rationalization.

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

Still stalking me .....What bit of Christianity do you follow?

If you are on my debate, you will abide by my rules. You are the one stalking me, because you are on my debate. if you don't like it, you are free to leave at any time. At any time, you are free, to stop posting on my debates. i promise you here, in public, that I will leave you alone, IF you agree to leave me alone. I am old fashioned. Per how my mother raised me, i believe that if you want respect, you will earn it. I also believe abuse, and hate are never okay. i also notice, that you are refusing to address anything that not only I, but what other people are saying to you. I used to troll too, so i know kind of, what you are doing. It is no way to live. Another point i am trying make, is that we are not discussing religion, so stay on topic. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, and to my knowledge, neither I nor anyone here is denying that, but you are not enetitled to your own facts. You are also not enetitled to tell outright lies about other people. You are being very abusive, and dishonest, and I am calling you out. I do however hope Jesus Christ saves you, and gives you the peace you need in your heart. I am sorry if i have offended you, in the Name of God. I agree that I don't have the right to do that, if that is what you are saying. I am sorry for burdening this community, with my mental health issues. i agree with you, that is not fair okay? I don't want or need your pity, but I also don't think I deserve the way you are treating me, just as others on this debate don't deserve the way you are treating them. I know what it is like to be angry. i will admit that, right here, okay? I also notice, that you are very angry, but i will let you decide, if you want to discuss that. i promise I don't hate you, or anyone else. i actually love and care for you, because Jesus Christ does too. I agree that i am not perfect, but i am wondering why you hate me, so much? Is it because I am a Christian? is it because I disagree with liberals, on some things? I have the right to know why you are treating me like this, and I am asking you to stop. If you hate me so much, please feel free to leave me alone, and stop replying to me, and posting on my debates. That is all I am asking, and I believe, that is my human right. I also want to clarify, that politically, i am a centrist, not a conservative. I want you to consider what I and other people are saying, and ask yourself, why you are so angry. You are in my prayers, and jesus loves you. i look forward to discussing this matter, if we can both agree to be civil. The sad thing? We probably agree on some things. i am willing to get to know you, if you return the favor. Take care, and Jesus bless you.

Dee

@YeshuaBought

***** The sad thing? We probably agree on some things

I doubt that very much 

.****I am willing to get to know you,

You said the same before on C D when you went on a hate filled rant but in fairness you apologised for that , yet here you go again .

I made perfectly reasonable remark to a piece you posted and you went rabid why is beyond , I know one thing if you are a Christian you don’t do it very well 

****if you return the favor.

The favor? 

***** Take care, and Jesus bless you.

I don’t believe in god , now can you stop stalking me?

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

***** The sad thing? We probably agree on some things

I doubt that very much 

.****I am willing to get to know you,

You said the same before on C D when you went on a hate filled rant but in fairness you apologised for that , yet here you go again .

I made perfectly reasonable remark to a piece you posted and you went rabid why is beyond , I know one thing if you are a Christian you don’t do it very well 

****if you return the favor.

The favor? 

***** Take care, and Jesus bless you.

I don’t believe in god , now can you stop stalking me?

If you don't want to speak to me, you are free to stop posting on my debates, at any time. you are also perfectly enetitled to your opinion, but you are not enetitled to your own facts. You have proven nothing.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***** I have just finished reading the book

Had it got big words in it? 

 "******A warning by Anonymous" which is an inside look at the Trump presidency, and a book I think all prospective voters in the 2020 election should read.

Near the end of the book the mysterious author talks about "Trump Derangement syndrome" Where the person becomes unable to think rationally because of their extreme hatred felt toward Trump.

Sounds like you 

****bIt is now my theory that @Dee may be diagnosed with TDS,(not a real diagnosis) and that the position that hating him is rational was a classic case of rationalization.

This from a prize cabbage who with his retard brother thinks Hitler was wrongly accused of being responsible for killing millions of Jews , because he and his brother are appealing to some “authority “ no doubt from a You Tube conspiracy channel

Dee

@YeshuaBought

****  You have proven nothing.

only that you’re a racist and a pretend Christian 

ZeusAres42

Well, this debate went south quickly.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Thats putting it mildly all because I said it’s rational to intensely dislike Trump .........

YeshuaBought

Dee said:

@YeshuaBought

***** Still palying the race card, eh?

Still playing the “ I’m a Christian card” Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

You have the right to your opinion. #DoYouBoo

Happy_Killbot

@Dee ?

The point about the holocaust was that Hitler's role in the genocide is debated, and since he never went to trial we can't ever say what his role was.

Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party, but he did not carry out the execution of the Jewish people. There are some who do not think that it was his idea, meaning that he just went with it and did not oppose it or do anything to stop it. There were more people in the Nazi party then just Hitler, and just being the leader doesn't guarantee that all things done under said administration are the responsibility of the leader.

This technically isn't an appeal to authority, because i'm just saying there is a debate, which is a statement of truth. Personally I'm agnostic in the matter. 

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

Thats putting it mildly all because I said it’s rational to intensely dislike Trump .........

@Dee, sorry but several of you have got to the point where you all start accusing each other of fallacies, ad-hominem attack, of trolling etc. And, no it's not rational to feel intense hate for Trump. And that isn't my position either. Emotions are feelings; rationality is cognition.

With all that being said, prior to the latter part of this debate, several of you have said things that are good arguments with good reasoning.

Sorry, but I have to fair and consistent with my views about being fair to everyone or else I will be acting irrationally. Pun intended.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

******  And, no it's not rational to feel intense hate for Trump

Change Trump to Hitler is it rational now if not why not?

Plaffelvohfen

@Happy_Killbot

Could be, just like Trump suffers from ODS (Obama derangement syndrome)... I've stated earlier that I do hate Trump, viscerally and unapologetically. I would not help him should he be drowning in front of me, that's how much I hate the guy...

BUT, I can have reasons (and hate is not a "reason", it's an excuse) to either disagree or even agree with him on whatever issue is on the table, I mean a broken clock is right 2 times a day after all...  

Dee

@Happy_Killbot ;

The point about the holocaust was that Hitler's role in the genocide is debated, and since he never went to trial we can't ever say what his role was.

Really? What a throughly statement , so you’re denying History now?

****Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party, but he did not carry out the execution of the Jewish people. 

Oh right , he gave the orders but is not responsible is that it? 

****gThere are some who do not think that it was his idea, meaning that he just went with it and did not oppose it or do anything to stop it. There were more people in the Nazi party then just Hitler, and just being the leader doesn't guarantee that all things done under said administration are the responsibility of the leader.

A Hitler groupie , wow takes a special type of person to actually defend Hitler 

*****This technically isn't an appeal to authority, because i'm just saying there is a debate, which is a statement of truth. Personally I'm agnostic in the matter. 

Read a decent History book but wait using your logic that’s an Appeal to Authority isn’t it .....

The question of overall responsibility for the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime traverses the oligarchy of those in command, foremost among them Adolf Hitler. In October 1939, he authorized the first Nazi mass killing for those labeled "undesirables" in the T-4 Euthanasia Program.[7][8] The Nazis termed such people as being "Lives unworthy of life." or lebensunwertes Leben in German.[9] Before the euthanasia program in Germany-proper was over, the Nazis killed between 65,000–70,000 persons.[10] Historian Henry Friedlander calls this period during which the 70,000 adults were killed, the "first phase" of the T4 Program since the program and its contributors precipitated the Holocaust.[11] Sometime between late June 1940 when planning for Operation Barbarossa first started and March 1941, orders were approved by Hitler for the re-establishment of the Einsatzgruppen (the surviving historical record does not permit firm conclusions to be drawn about the precise date).[12] Hitler encouraged the killings of the Jews of Eastern Europe by the Einsatzgruppen death squads in a speech of July 1941.[13] Evidence suggests that in the fall of 1941, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler and Hitler agreed in principle on the complete mass extermination of the Jews of Europe by gassing, with Hitler explicitly ordering the "annihilation of the Jews" in a speech on 12 December 1941, by which time the Jewish populations in the Baltic states had been effectively eliminated.[14] To make for smoother intra-governmental cooperation in the implementation of this so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish Question", the Wannsee conference was held near Berlin on 20 January 1942, with the participation of fifteen senior officials, led by Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann; the records of which provide the best evidence of the central planning of the Holocaust. Just five weeks later on 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying to his closest associates: "We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew."[15]

ZeusAres42

Dee said:

@ZeusAres42

******  And, no it's not rational to feel intense hate for Trump

Change Trump to Hitler is it rational now if not why not?

@dee No, it's not rational to hate Hitler either. It's reasonable as to why one would hate Hitler. But a feeling of discontent is not a rational action or a rational cognition. While emotions can and do influence cognition and behaviour and vice versa they are not the same things as one another.

Happy_Killbot

@Plaffelvohfen I agree, but there is a huge difference between these ways of thinking:

1. Reaching new information by applying logic and reason to existing information,
2. starting with an assumption that is a belief/value/emotion and reaching a logical conclusion about what to do next,
3. starting with an assumption that is a belief/value/emotion and comparing it to other ideas to see if it fits with your assumptions,
4. justifying your actions/beliefs/values/emotions after the fact to try and assert that they were rational.

In the case of Trump hate, it is square one, or an excuse and not a reason as you put it. What Dee is doing is trying to justify the Trump hate after reaching conclusions about it, which can't be done because there is nothing to justify those emotions because they are not rational, they just are.

Happy_Killbot

@Dee I wasn't aware that you knew of every single order, statement, and action taken by the infamous genocidal dictator.

I also wasn't aware that Wikipedia was considered a reliable source of information.

Consider this: Was Hitler born hating Jews or did he learn it from somewhere?

Also consider this: If Emotions such as Hatred are rational, then why isn't the Nazi's genocide rational?

ZeusAres42

YeshuaBought said:

Happy_Killbot said:

@YeshuaBought Internet. There are actually tons like it in the same style for all the major fallacies.

Awesome sauce. Have you been to youlogicalfallacyis.com yet? That has articles on all of the logical fallacies.

• "Everyone is using that source today, it's the best there is."
• "You can't believe a word of that source. I mean the author is religious; he is bound to say all this stuff."
• "My Uncle is a really smart guy and he uses this source. Therefore it must be the best source there is.
  
• "I think that's a great reference site. Therefore, that's why I use the dictionary."
  

Dee

@ZeusAres42

****No it’s not rational to hate Hitler either. 

Right , I’m surrounded by a site full of Spocks  who on seeing their kids hounded into the gas chamber would admonish their wives for saying “ I hate  Hitler “ by replying “come , come dear that’s not rational “ 

****It's reasonable as to why one would hate Hitler. But a feeling of discontent is not a rational action or a rational cognition. 

Right , so a feeling of discontent at being attacked by a wild animal,is not rational? 

****While emotions can and do influence cognition and behaviour and vice versa they are not the same things as one another. 

Never said they were  

“. It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.” 

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

@Happy_Killbot ;

****  I wasn't aware that you knew of every single order, statement, and action taken by the infamous genocidal dictator.

Who was in charge? 

****I also wasn't aware that Wikipedia was considered a reliable source of information.

Why not do your own research .....oh wait you and your brother have done so without Wiki no doubt 

****Consider this: Was Hitler born hating Jews or did he learn it from somewhere?

How could we ever know 

****Also consider this: If Emotions such as Hatred are rational, then why isn't the Nazi's genocide rational?

This was explained to you several times but as usual you ignore everything that doesn’t agree with your narrow minded narrative ......

“ It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.” The other kind of hatred, which he calls “character-conditioned”, was made use of by the Nazis in recruiting their party. The bulk of their recruits came from the lower middle class, who had led a starved and frustrated life socially and economically, particularly since 1918, in Germany. This led to tremendous irrational hatred and destructiveness which could only be expressed in small doses before the Nazi party offered an outlet.

Erich Fromm 

No doubt you will use your usual,appeal to authority “out “ again 

Plaffelvohfen

@Happy_Killbot

The thing about emotion and rationality is that emotions allow us to settle for a satisfactory outcome instead of an optimal outcome (which we cannot always get because of circumstances), as opposed to an emotionless computer for example, who would naturally go for the optimal outcome because it is more "rational"...

I do agree with Dee on some notions, that emotions are essential to humans, they are tools, like some kind of probability calculator, they inform us about our surroundings, they are not as opposed as we may intuitively think, in the last few decades, it is true that in many fields, interdependencies were found between cognition and emotions, but still it doesn't make emotions "rational" per se...

Happy_Killbot

@Dee This just begs the question though. If people should hate what threatens them, what justifies love of life?

The reasoning is circular.

You have to assume that survival is justified in order to conclude that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are justified, to conclude that survival is justified...

Happy_Killbot

@Plaffelvohfen I'm not arguing that emotions are useless or serve no practical purpose, just that emotions are not rational in and of themselves and this pertains to Trump haters.

There are also deeper political implications, because I think if people can recognize that their assumptions/values/beliefs/emotions are not in themselves rational, we can have better more reasonable discourse, something we are in dire need of especially now during the Trump presidency. IMHO, this is the only good thing that can come out of his office.

ZeusAres42

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Happy_Killbot

The thing about emotion and rationality is that emotions allow us to settle for a satisfactory outcome instead of an optimal outcome (which we cannot always get because of circumstances), as opposed to an emotionless computer for example, who would naturally go for the optimal outcome because it is more "rational"...

I do agree with Dee on some notions, that emotions are essential to humans, they are tools, like some kind of probability calculator, they inform us about our surroundings, they are not as opposed as we may intuitively think, in the last few decades, it is true that in many fields, interdependencies were found between cognition and emotions, but still it doesn't make emotions "rational" per se...

@Plaffelvohfen

One thing I have noticed that everyone is forgetting here is that contentment is a state of emotion which in turn helps people think and act more rationally, reasonably, and logically. When you're calm (a state of emotion by the way) you can think so much more clearly.

There a few misconceptions about reason and emotion. A common one is that we're creatures of reason. Another misconception that I have witnessed as well as being of that position in the past is that we're creatures more of emotion than of reason. The truth is, however, that we're both creatures of reason and emotion.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

***** This just begs the question though. 

It doesn’t actually 

*****If people should hate what threatens them, what justifies love of life?

Well I detest serious illness don’t you ? What justifies love of live , family , friends , Art , books , nature etc , etc , 

****The reasoning is circular.

I disagree , if that’s the case everything is circular including logic and if not quiet circular it’s certainly tautological 

***You have to assume that survival is justified in order to conclude that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are justified, to conclude that survival is justified...

You keep using that term “justified “ to whom or what? Also you never answered even though I’ve asked several times what is this foundation of reason you keep referencing? 

Happy_Killbot

@Dee

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

@Happy_Killbot ;

****  I wasn't aware that you knew of every single order, statement, and action taken by the infamous genocidal dictator.

Who was in charge? 

****I also wasn't aware that Wikipedia was considered a reliable source of information.

Why not do your own research .....oh wait you and your brother have done so without Wiki no doubt 

****Consider this: Was Hitler born hating Jews or did he learn it from somewhere?

How could we ever know 

****Also consider this: If Emotions such as Hatred are rational, then why isn't the Nazi's genocide rational?

This was explained to you several times but as usual you ignore everything that doesn’t agree with your narrow minded narrative ......

“ It is rational hatred, aroused by an attack on life, freedom, country, some person or institution we love. Such hatred is necessary for winning a war against aggression. “People must love what they are defending, in order to hate their attackers effectively.” The other kind of hatred, which he calls “character-conditioned”, was made use of by the Nazis in recruiting their party. The bulk of their recruits came from the lower middle class, who had led a starved and frustrated life socially and economically, particularly since 1918, in Germany. This led to tremendous irrational hatred and destructiveness which could only be expressed in small doses before the Nazi party offered an outlet.

Erich Fromm 

No doubt you will use your usual,appeal to authority “out “ again 

Hmmm...Yes...Very good points I haven't considered. Who was in charge? and why doesn't my brother use wikipedia?

Oh, and we couldn't know, could we? Huh. Almost like that was my point.

And yes, this is another appeal to authority, and the content of the quote is just begging the question, and an appeal to emotion.