Fear and Anger - Page 2

Jellyfish · #11 (**permalink**) 03-24-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

None of these things necessitate anger. They are all rational things. Anger makes rational thought harder.
What you are really trying to say is not to be a coward. That isn't the same as being angry. I can get angry when somebody accidentally drops something on my foot. What should I do with that anger? On the other hand, even if I were not truly angered by a violent psychopath, I would still see the point in preventing him from doing harm.

A coward wouldn’t do anything.
Anger can be channeled into something productive like helping to incarcerate a law-breaker.

Quote:

The trouble with your argument is that you assume that people are either angry or cowardice. In reality, while many people might be, a lot of people you'd accuse of one or the other are trying to find solutions to problems. They come to different conclusions. But no matter what, they are generally more productive than those that are simply reacting.

I’m talking about the people who accuse the Bush administration of using fear tactics. I’m calling those critics cowards, and the people they accuse of being fearful are, in reality, angry.

I am not talking about rage.

One thing Bush critics seem to have in common is hate, and I think it has more to do with fear than anything. So far, it appears to be counterproductive as seen in the previous election.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate
Hate or hatred is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon; a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy its object. The emotion is often stigmatized; yet it serves an important purpose, as does love. Just as love signals attachment, hatred signals detachment.

Hatred can be based on fear of its object, justified or unjustified, or past negative consequences of dealing with that object. Hatred is often described as the opposite of love or friendship; others, such as Elie Wiesel, consider the opposite of love to be indifferent.

Hate is not necessarily logical and it can be counterproductive and self-perpetuating.

Zoe · #12 (**permalink**) 03-24-2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jellyfish";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

None of these things necessitate anger. They are all rational things. Anger makes rational thought harder.
What you are really trying to say is not to be a coward. That isn't the same as being angry. I can get angry when somebody accidentally drops something on my foot. What should I do with that anger? On the other hand, even if I were not truly angered by a violent psychopath, I would still see the point in preventing him from doing harm.

A coward wouldn’t do anything.
Anger can be channeled into something productive like helping to incarcerate a law-breaker.

Quote:

The trouble with your argument is that you assume that people are either angry or cowardice. In reality, while many people might be, a lot of people you'd accuse of one or the other are trying to find solutions to problems. They come to different conclusions. But no matter what, they are generally more productive than those that are simply reacting.

I’m talking about the people who accuse the Bush administration of using fear tactics. I’m calling those critics cowards, and the people they accuse of being fearful are, in reality, angry.

All you have to do is listen to Bush's words. When Helen Thomas recently asked him why he REALLY chose to involve the country in the war in Iraq, like a wind-up toy, he launched into the "since 9/11 ... Iraq .. the terrorsists are coming to get you" speech. ..." Unfocused fear, misplaced anger are considered pathological emotions not constructive ones.

Using your analogy about a couple fighting: That situation happened to me years ago, at night , in the streets of Boston. I saw a guy slapping a girl and yelling at her. I am all of a 110 pounds but I crossed the street and asked the woman if she needed help. They BOTH turned on ME and threatened bodily harm. Fortunately, we spoke the same language so I "got" what they were trying to tell me w/o bloodshed: I beat feet. Sometimes it is usefully to assess the situation, have a plan, some back-up and even an exit strategy before you leap willy nilly into a domestic dispute

JavaBlack · #13 (**permalink**) 03-24-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jellyfish";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack";p=&quot

None of these things necessitate anger. They are all rational things. Anger makes rational thought harder.
What you are really trying to say is not to be a coward. That isn't the same as being angry. I can get angry when somebody accidentally drops something on my foot. What should I do with that anger? On the other hand, even if I were not truly angered by a violent psychopath, I would still see the point in preventing him from doing harm.

A coward wouldn’t do anything.
Anger can be channeled into something productive like helping to incarcerate a law-breaker.

Quote:

The trouble with your argument is that you assume that people are either angry or cowardice. In reality, while many people might be, a lot of people you'd accuse of one or the other are trying to find solutions to problems. They come to different conclusions. But no matter what, they are generally more productive than those that are simply reacting.

I’m talking about the people who accuse the Bush administration of using fear tactics. I’m calling those critics cowards, and the people they accuse of being fearful are, in reality, angry.

I am not talking about rage.

One thing Bush critics seem to have in common is hate, and I think it has more to do with fear than anything. So far, it appears to be counterproductive as seen in the previous election.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate
Hate or hatred is an emotion of intense revulsion, distaste, enmity, or antipathy for a person, thing, or phenomenon; a desire to avoid, restrict, remove, or destroy its object. The emotion is often stigmatized; yet it serves an important purpose, as does love. Just as love signals attachment, hatred signals detachment.

Hatred can be based on fear of its object, justified or unjustified, or past negative consequences of dealing with that object. Hatred is often described as the opposite of love or friendship; others, such as Elie Wiesel, consider the opposite of love to be indifferent.

Hate is not necessarily logical and it can be counterproductive and self-perpetuating.

That's the problem with being thoroughly embedded on one side of the political spectrum. You have a cynical view of the liberal motives and a glorified view of the conservative motives. Isn't it more likely that some who react to Bush as a fear-monger actually see it and some who cling to Bush do so in reaction and fear? There are cowards and non-thinkers on both sides of any issue. Then there are a lot of people who are just saying what they truly believe.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode