I agree that you might have a different definition for it, but as I see it the word 'hate' refers to that emotional response wherein you hate someone and then justify it afterwards.
Yes, this part we disagree on. When I defined hate, I did not specify how it was reached. The word is now taboo. I will instead replace it with "An emotional response in the bearer indicating its recipient thing is a continuous source of harm to the bearer as long as the recipient exists, even if not currently present, and the bearer does not see any means of recourse other than the recipient's destruction." Which is a lot longer, but avoids the misunderstanding we're having. If you mean something else, put that definition in quotes like I have mine, and we'll discuss them independently.
Yes, rational people as opposed to emotional people are given to emotion when they are warranted. That's not some extra special thing, that's just how I, and the roughly half of people like me work. When an emotion floats up into my mind, it is like a pointer in a computer, and it points to some object I feel the emotion about, which is correlated to all the necessary causes for why this emotion is being felt. When those pointers are malformed, I acknowledge them as incorrect and reject them.
Sometimes the way we feel is wrong.
I also have depression, and it is trivially easy to tell the depressive thoughts from the normal ones, because the depressive ones are either null pointers made up with no reference, or the chain of causes is warped. That doesn't stop me from feeling them, it just lets me know they're invalid and should not be acted on. Denying them is in part how I've held myself together.
And yes of course when you escape the simplistic you might have to play game theory, but it's still right to "have an emotional response in the bearer indicating its recipient thing is a continuous source of harm to the bearer as long as the recipient exists, even if not currently present, and the bearer does not see any means of recourse other than the recipient's destruction" towards the cannibal village if they really are all out to get you. That doesn't mean "stupidly go try to punch them all and get captured serving no purpose". Even if you aren't physically capable of protecting yourself, you still continue to have "an emotional response in the bearer indicating its recipient thing is a continuous source of harm to the bearer as long as the recipient exists, even if not currently present, and the bearer does not see any means of recourse other than the recipient's destruction" at them from the inside of the stew pot for as long as you can, looking for an out.
I wasn't aware that was a thing that needed permission. It's not like I could stop you. So sure. What are you sigging?
When was he banned before?
The succubus illustration. It was ugly and hideous, but it had nipples. So it got dinged.
