Identity Verified Thinker in Politics / Forms of Government / Republic
Thomas J Donegan
Thomas J Donegan
Born January 22, 1958 Graduated 1976 Lawrence County Vo-Tech U.S.Navy, 11/76 - 10/82 Cryptologic Technician M-branch Graduated 1989 Slippery Rock University B.S. Mathematics, minors: Philosophy, History U.S. Government 1990 -2001 Various private sector Electrical/Electronics jobs 2001- present


This Blog has no active categories.

By what metric is hatred measured?

Dec. 1, 2017 8:18 pm
Keywords: None

By what metric is hatred measured?

What follows is a rejoinder to Dr. Mike Sutton's blog-post: "British Hate Group Leader Appeals to her Admirer President Trump for Rescue" Dr. Sutton’s post may be viewed:

Hi, Mike (Dr. Sutton)!

You may find the link interesting, but you may very well not. The piece has a take which opposes yours... Our interest is not defending POTUS Trump; he can take care of himself…

Hate speech? One could make a claim that labeling speech hatred mere subjective opinion and therefore something very like hatred...? Oh, but the State wouldn't be claiming it to be hatred, and States i.e., Governments, don't ever sponsor hatred, murder, and mayhem... It is not only the German Government (Hitler's 3rd Reich) which has ever murdered people - which they accused of whatever was necessary to justify the murder of innocents! Silencing dissenters, and people that object to systematic injustice of allowing people to get away with murder and mayhem (because one cannot tell who is prone to such action, and who is not; not all Muslims are jihadists, but as Former US Federal prosecutor, Andy McCarthy @ NRO who prosecuted the "Blind Sheik" and author of: The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America; nearly all Muslims subscribe to Sharia Supremacism, thus even the most secular Muslim will choose Sharia law over the US Constitution, British law etc., thus such people will not stand opposed to Sharia gradually surmounting/replacing secular law), does not obviate social problem; it allows its agents to insidiously recruit others; as your civil order organizations punish those that object you deliver a message - to those which are recruiting more Jihadists - viz: that you are weak, scared and capitulators, because you "just want to get along..." As Jihadists act to increase their numbers, and the jihadist believes that it all comes down to numbers and to will (or lack thereof). You may desire to see my blog-post (of course you may desire not to see the post as well…) "Regarding Islam and Eschatology."

If one says the right thing for the camera - in the correct manner - but then stab, blow-up, run down, one's opponents, Governments (weak and dying Governments) have chosen to blame those which upset the murders. If Churchill - of WWII was here today, he'd likely think that you Dr. Sutton and Theresa May were indicative of Britain's problem, and assert that: 'If such conduct exemplified Britain in WWII, we'd all be speaking German!'

Most of what is said - and/or written - about those which occupy the social-political Right is an expression of contempt for their hardihood of claiming there are objective moral norms. And most of what is written or uttered by one on the social-political Right is likely thought to be hate speech, by their opponents on the Left. People on the Right - unfortunately, think they can have a dialectical discussion with their opponents and find common ground, but Nietzsche has instructed the Left otherwise... When a social-political Leftist denigrates their intellectual opponents - viciously characterizing them - it is taken as descriptive by most sentimentalists of the Left. And the Left - having repudiated objective moral principles - cannot avoid being sentimental... So they express their feelings for opponents, and that would again seem to be hatred...?

Which begs a question for a man of science...? How is it that one may measure hatred? What metric is utilized to differentiate "hatred," from an ugly truth? Nietzsche asserted: “…for truth demands to be declared even if it is ugly and unethical.” I happen to agree with Nietzsche on that (and many, but not all, of his aphoristic dictums…), and so did our Founding Fathers, thus they gave us a 1st amendment (It just so happens that I published a very tedious blog-post on the 1st Amendment).

If Government disallows speech, speech which - if allowed - results* in Muslims becoming violent, perhaps Government ought to examine why Muslims are prone to violence? No civil society should abide violent protests, and again - the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment provides for a Right to peaceful assemblage and for the Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, Britain should consider the pubic-square as the venue to settle disputes peacefully and through dialectical discourse...? Parties, organizations, individuals should be placed in an arena (one could make a television show, whereby the public could view, and even weigh-in on public grievances; not that the public should decide, but they would come to an understanding of the real differences between the aggrieved parties…An example which could be done globally would have Muslims debate free speech… I’m pretty sure such programs would draw an audience). If Party "A" is willing to debate peacefully, but Party "B" is not, perhaps the ordering of party "B's" soul is the problem?

*I had to correct myself, I almost wrote: "causes Muslims to become violent." Truth: many Muslims are dispositionally ordered to act and react in violence since their faith is irrational fideism and cannot be defended intellectually; witness Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg University address in 2006; the Pope has a fatwa on him to this day...

So you may indict Trump - I don't direct his activities and he can defend himself - but to label people as "haters” and to countenance laws which sanction "hatred" seems rather despotically Orwellian to me. We close in repeating Nietzsche: “…for truth demands to be declared even if it is ugly and unethical.”

Take care and best wishes to you, Dr. Sutton!

Thomas J. Donegan

There are currently no comments. to Shut Down Permanently on December 31, 2017

If you want to save a copy of your content, you must do so before the website shuts down on December 31, 2017. We will NOT be able to provide any assistance after the website shuts down. We are available at only until the shutdown to provide more information and assistance.

It was a noble 10-year experiment, but it turns out that the writers with the best content are the least adept at the tech required to publish under our model, which in hindsight, makes perfect sense. If you are dedicating your life to becoming an expert in your specialty, you don’t have a lot of time left for figuring out publishing tech.

It hasn't helped that we have entered an age of unprecedented polarization and antagonism which doesn't foster demand for a website dedicated to the respectful engagement of diverse views.

Thank you, everyone!

Latest Thinking in Politics & Government
Latest Ebooks