[stargroup100]

We're all legitimately trying. We're not trying to be rude, especially me. But every time we try to explain what you're not understanding, you go off in a tangent or say something that's not valid. You think you understand, but your rational discourse is unclear.

I'll try one more time.

The original argument (even if you understood already I'm just gonna reiterate):
- Logical hatred is possible.
- Hate is a natural human emotion, and there's nothing wrong with hate itself.
- If someone is harmed as a result of a feeling of hatred, that is wrong.
- Therefore, misanthropy itself could potentially be justified.

What you can't grasp:
- When we compared two things, we explained how it applied to the topic. You said the analogy was not valid, but you didn't convince us how it wasn't valid. Like the human/oyster example, you said humans are different from oysters, but then you don't ever compare it back to the oyster. I turned your human argument into an oyster one by changing a few words, and you never addressed why that wasn't valid.
- A generalization about an entire group does NOT necessarily apply to each individual of a group. Whether or not the generalization is negative is irrelevant.
- Just because one has a negative generalization of a group of people does not mean they will treat this group unfairly. They can draw conclusions about what is likely, but ultimately give each individual person a fair chance. This is possible.