[extropy-chat] Hating versus Loving

[Lee Corbin]

Stuart writes

>> I'm not a victim!  Not any more. I can afford to
>> live where it's easy and safe, and everyone is
>> courteous. Everywhere I happen to go (which
>> isn't far, I admit) everything is perfectly normal
>> and civilized. I don't need to be "street-wise".
>> NO ONE SHOULD NEED TO BE
>> STREET WISE!
> 
> Now who is the unrealistic idealist? Nobody should
> need to be rational either but we do. The wisdom of
> the street is wisdom nonetheless. 

Did you catch my meaning?  I was trying to suggest
that societies in which one does not *need* to be 
"street-wise" are vastly preferable, and that we should
insist---and do what we must---to achieve that level
again.  There have been many, many societies, mostly
small ones, in which one felt completely safe from crime.
E.g., many small towns in 1950s America (or in even a
few today!), religious communities, e.g. Quakers, and
so on. Fukiyama in his book "Trust" gives examples too.
But he's not the only one who has noticed an alarming
diminution of  trustfulness in America during the last
forty years, and a concomitant rise in fearfulness.

>> No.  As I read history, it looks rather effective.
>> Carthago delenda est, and many examples
>> like it. Without hate of what the Japanese did, the
>> Americans could not have brought the Pacific war
>> to an end. 
> 
> Without hate, Rome WOULD not have destroyed Carthage.
> But did not Carthage hate Rome just as much? Why did
> hate serve one and not the other? Hate is the most
> treacherous of all emotions. It makes you *feel*
> invincible and belligerent all the way up to point
> where you run up against someone stronger. Then it
> abandons you. Like it did Carthage against Rome. Like
> it did Rome against the Huns.

Are you trying to make an evolutionary argument that
tribes which cannot or do never hate have a survival
advantage?  If Rome hadn't hated the Carthagenians,
then maybe they would have just waited around
until the people across the water sent another Hannibal
at them.  In an evolutionary sense, the Romans did the
right thing.  As for their enemies, sadly for them they
couldn't prevail, and whether they hated the Romans
or not, they might still have lost, for the same kinds of
material reasons that the South lost to the North.

> Love on the other hand *makes* you strong. Stronger
> than you ever thought you could be.

This and statements like "evil destroys itself"---or whatever
it was in your earlier post---makes me wonder if you ever
worry about mouthing platitudes.  Yes, I can understand
how the love of a man for his family would give him 
strength for its defense, just as the love people have of
their country also adds to the longevity of a country. Are
these the kinds of examples you have in mind?

> Hate could not have taken the beach at Normandy.
> The Nazi's had hate. The Nazis were FOUNDED
> on hate.

Well, they did overran all of Europe. After them, the
Soviets about whom nothing any better can be said
than the Nazis, suppressed with equal ferocity a 
dozen nations for forty years.  Now, I may not go
so far as you and say that anyone or anything is
FOUNDED on hate, but I'm sure that you agree
the less hateful don't always win.  Material factors
are important here too, else the Japanese---with
the highest morale in the world---would have been
as invincible as they thought they were.

>> It should NOT be the fault of a little old lady that
>> she gets mugged. We *should* be able to walk
>> our parks at night.  Don't you agree that something
>> terribly important has been lost because we cannot?
> 
> Fault and responsibility are not the same thing. She
> has the responsibility to herself to defend herself.
> It is not her fault if she fails in this. But it is
> her fault if she does not try. Old ladies can pull a
> trigger too you know. As far as having lost something,
> you make it sound like the world used to be a better
> safer place. At least the mugger won't eat her. 

But Stuart, it *is* true that people in many, many cities
throughout not only U.S. history, but world history, have
felt safer than they do in our large cities. People feel a lot
safer in Chinese cities, for example.  And one big reason
for that is that whatever else he did, Mao totally wiped
out the criminal elements, right down to the last prostitute.

There is no hope of convincing you and most others of
a need for draconian measures, and I'm not really interested
in convincing anyone.  (What all the people here think about
something doesn't really matter very much, sad to say.)
I *am* interested in wondering why you can't imagine that
things could be a lot better in our big cities and *should* be,
and that we *should* have long ago been implementing
policies that would have helped.

>> > Hitler called the jews rats to convince people
>> > it was politically correct to do precisely what
>> > you advocate.
>> 
>> Jesus Christ.  You compare the millions of
>> perfectly innocent, harmless, and economically
>> productive European Jews to our inner-city
>> hoodlums, gangsters, and murderers?  I can
>> hardly believe what I am reading!
> 
> Nobody is perfectly innocent and harmless except maybe
> an infant or a liar.

Could you go into more detail concerning the faults
of European Jewry :-)  or at least why we shouldn't
consider them to have been completely innocent
(in that time and place)?

Lee

P.S.  I cut back your 13KB post a bit;  maybe you can
selectively reply to the most salient points and let other
points go, in fear of geometric progression!