Why is misanthropy not considered bigotry?

[stargroup100]

If you claim that the human case is different, then there should be something that you can say about humans that does not apply to oysters.

Originally Posted by Zaevod

There are a lot of people in the world. Most of them are not killers or torturers or whatever, but some are. Unless the thing that bothers you about a certain group is an essential part of the group, then it makes no sense to generalize traits you found in specific people you met to the whole group.

Originally Posted by check this out

There are a lot of oysters in the world. Most of them are not going to make me sick, but some are. Unless the thing that bothers you about certain oysters is an essential part of the oyster, then it makes no sense to generalize traits you found in specific oysters you ate to all oysters.

Your description of humans can also apply to oysters, so this doesn't explain why the human comparison is any different.

Try the following exercise: Take any argument you think applies to humans but not oysters. Change the wording like I did here so that it applies to oysters in the context of our discussion. Challenge yourself to see our position. You may find that almost everything you say about one you can about the other (in relevance to the topic).

[stargroup100]

You can also do that exercise the other way around to see what we're trying to say. Here's the point Rubix was trying to make that you called a straw man:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Zaevod: What kind of food do you like?
Me: I like Japanese food.
Zaevod: NO. WRONG. YOU LIKE THE SUBSET OF JAPANESE FOOD THAT YOU HAVE HAPPENED TO ENJOY, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT ALL JAPANESE FOOD. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO SAY THAT YOU LIKE JAPANESE FOOD.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate's point

Zaevod: What kind of people do you hate?
Me: I hate Japanese people.
Zaevod: NO. WRONG. YOU HATE THE SUBSET OF JAPANESE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE HAPPENED TO MEET, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT ABOUT ALL JAPANESE PEOPLE. IT IS ILLOGICAL TO SAY THAT YOU HATE JAPANESE PEOPLE.

Notice how both of these quotes are basically making the same kind of point. Why do you think the first one is wrong but the second one is acceptable? What point can you make about people that you CANNOT say about food in this way?

[Zaevod]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

I'll try one more time.

The original argument (even if you understood already I'm just gonna reiterate):
- Logical hatred is possible.

I never said it wasn't. It's logical to hate a murderer that destroyed your family, for example.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- Hate is a natural human emotion, and there's nothing wrong with hate itself.

I agree, but it can motivate some pretty nasty, unfair things.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- If someone is harmed as a result of a feeling of hatred, that is wrong.

Yeah.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- Therefore, misanthropy itself could potentially be justified.

Could be, but not all reasons that people adopt for it in reality are rational. Do you understand that?

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- 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.

As I mentioned several times after that argument, I admitted I was wrong. Not all generalizations are bad.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- 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.

I know that. I was wrong when I invalidated all generalizations, but my main issue is with what motivates these generalizations in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...generalization

I'll just be clear: you can generalize all you want if the only results that come from your generalization are in the form of safety for you. Like in the case of the oyster. That's reasonable. It needs to be questioned if it can have other consequences to other people, and hateful ideals often have physical consequences, unless the person keeps their feelings to themselves.

Originally Posted by stargroup100

- 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.

Yes, I see. Though a lot of people I've personally met who make these hateful generalizations greatly overstate the flaws of human nature and treat people like trash as a result.

I don't have a problem with misanthropes that just want to avoid people and live their lives, but if they try to spread hateful notions and use poor justifications for it (like many bigots do in reality, as you surely know) I will question them.

So, is there any other problem?

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

I agree, but it can motivate some pretty nasty, unfair things.

I agree, but the statement I made used the words "hate itself". What that hate motivates is NOT in the context of this particular statement. This is a slippery slope that COULD lead to mis-communication because we will no longer be talking about the same things. See this?

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Could be, but not all reasons that people adopt for it in reality are rational. Do you understand that?

"Not all reasons are logical" is logically equivalent to "Some reasons are logical". I said that misanthropy CAN be justified, which is saying the EXACT same thing you're saying. So yes of course I understand that. But why did you think I was saying anything different in the first place?

Originally Posted by Zaevod

I know that. I was wrong when I invalidated all generalizations, but my main issue is with what motivates these generalizations in reality.

In other words, some generalizations are wrong, some generalizations are right. Of course, but again, talking about what causes generalizations to be wrong or right is outside the the scope of our discussions, a slippery slope to mis-communication. Be careful.

Originally Posted by Zaevod

I'll just be clear: you can generalize all you want if the only results that come from your generalization are in the form of safety for you. Like in the case of the oyster. That's reasonable. It needs to be questioned if it can have other consequences to other people, and hateful ideals often have physical consequences.

And when it does reach that point, that falls under "If someone is harmed as a result of a feeling of hatred, that is wrong." which I have already covered.

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Yes, I see. Though a lot of people I've personally met who make these hateful generalizations greatly overstate the flaws of human nature and treat people like trash as a result.

I don't have a problem with misanthropes that just want to avoid people and live their lives, but if they try to spread hateful notions and use poor justifications for it (like many bigots do in reality, as you surely know) I will question them.

"If someone is harmed as a result of a feeling of hatred, that is wrong."

Notice how while we agree with your concepts, we don't agree with how you present them. You need to work on your rational discourse.

[Zaevod]

Alright. Now, the question I must ask is: if hateful ideas against people can cause problems if they spread, isn't it better to question the motivation behind the hatred of people whenever possible?

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Zaevod

Alright. Now, the question I must ask is: if hateful ideas against people can cause problems if they spread, isn't it better to question the motivation behind the hatred of people whenever possible?

That's a more well-formed question.

And to this I say of course, but unfortunately hate is just as natural a human emotion as happiness, sadness, pain, sexual arousal, etc. You can't possibly stop a human from feeling hatred. The only thing you can realistically do is prevent people from acting on it negatively.

So while I agree with what you said, I think it's totally unrealistic.

[Cavernio]

Totally aside to the current arguing, what I find weird about what you've said, Zaevod, is that you've stated that to use your emotions for views is somehow the incorrect way to do it.
I mean, if I were to only use logic when determining values, and everyone else were to also do the same thing, humanity itself wouldn't give a shit if it lived or died.

You simply cannot and -should not- discount emotions or emotional arguments when it comes down to such discussions, because they are integral to it.