Disagreement and Hate

[Warning: the following piece was written as a “rant” of sorts originally, and so bears marks of the same, certainly in its tone. I apologize in advance, but it was difficult to revise it while still maintaining the substance, which I believe needs to be expressed. Plus, it isn't of a very good literary quality, either. Still...]

I find it ironic when a person accuses another who disagrees with him or his actions as being, ipso facto, a "hater", as happens far too often in our society (especially in respect to controversies concerning moral issues). Why? Because in such situations, the person making the accusation stands self-condemned on his own principles, and yet still proves nothing against his opponent, anyway.

To be fair, I concede from the start that it is possible that if you disagree with another person, that you may hate that person as a consequence. But it is, of course, also quite possible to, not only not hate, but in fact greatly love someone you disagree with. Indeed, you may disagree with another person so passionately precisely because of your love for that person, and the fact that you do not wish him to experience the bad consequences that his errors entail. Most of us realize this when we grow up, if not before. It is childish to pretend otherwise. ("Mommy and Daddy hate me because they don't agree I should have three bowls of ice cream!")

But, oddly enough, as I noted above, it is precisely the person who makes such accusations who is, in reality, condemning himself. Yet he does so without showing anything against his opponent at all. How?

Recall that disagreement is by its very nature mutual. If someone disagrees with you, then by that very fact that means you disagree with him. You can't have one without the other.

Now, like I said, I don't recognize the validity of the premise that disagreement equals hate. So if I have a disagreement with someone, I do not thereby acknowledge that means I hate him. As a matter of fact, I don't. If someone maintains that I do hate him due to disagreeing with him or his actions, it is still up to him to demonstrate that to be the case. He hasn't yet. And he won't be able to, because it's not true.

But, given that such an opponent does wrongly equate disagreement with hate, then even though it isn't true of disagreement in and of itself that it implies hate, it does show that in his particular case it does imply such on his part. After all, he is disagreeing with me. Yet since by his own principles disagreement equals hate, then that means he must hate me.

And since I don't deny that disagreement can be accompanied by hate (I only deny it always is), then I'm quite willing to acknowledge the obvious, that he is more or less admitting that he hates me, even though I do not hate him (even if I understably get angry with him, given the circumstances). In other words, the only "hater" is my opponent, as shown by his own principles. He is therefore engaging in projection, and nothing else. If he denies that he is a “hater”, he can only do so by admitting that disagreement does not necessarily equal hate. If that is the case, he needs to stop accusing me of being a hater simply because I disagree with him.

Obvious, is it not? Yet unfortunately people far too often these days do not stop for two seconds to think of the implications of their own principles.