Hate is such a strong word, but makes such a weak argument

By Scott Hyland

I am deeply disturbed by rhetorical trends that aim to cast labels rather than cure differences. Growing up in the small town of Library, Pennsylvania, my mom would not tolerate the use of the word "hate" within our family. As you can imagine, conflict is inevitable with four siblings, all boys I might add. But we were never allowed to use the word "hate" in reference to others. Mom used to say, "Hate is such a strong word." The same could be said for many families.

In support of Dan Cathy's, President of Chick-fil-A, recent stand on traditional marriage, I found myself once again being accused of "hate." The people making this accusation seem to believe that by not accepting certain behaviors, a person is being intolerant of other people's practices. Unfortunately, what they fail to understand is that by making this accusation, they are guilty of the same — it is a self-refuting argument and not very helpful in coming to a common understanding of the main issue.

As a Christian, I believe that my exposure to reading the Bible has provided me with a deeper appreciation of the human condition, especially my own. I realize by nature, humans do have the capacity to be selfish, greedy, unloving, unmerciful, unkind, etc. Therefore, these are flaws that I personally strive to guard against, realizing of course, that the Bible is very clear that all people will one day have to answer for their actions.

My point is simply this, I know that Christianity has made a definitive difference in my life, especially when it comes to the way that I treat others. Absent my belief, I would tend to be more aggressive toward people rather than ideas. In other words, I understand that I am to love people who hold ideas, but that does not obligate me to agree with the ideas that a person holds.

Therefore, when the word "hate" is used in reference to an individual's position on certain social practices, this word does not simply win the argument. A person does not trump all arguments against his case by accusing a person of, responding with, or using the word "hate." In fact, in a debate this tends to contribute to very lazy practices in forming an opinion, because people can feel justified by a word rather than developing arguments that allow others to come to a clearer understanding as to why they hold the position they do.

Every time "hate" is used in response to a position that a person holds, it reminds me of child's play or children's logic. Have you ever watched as children socialize? A little girl receives a new toy and when a friend asks to see it, she refuses and of course her friend responds, "You're so mean!" Or a child asks her mother in the sweetest voice, "Can we go to McDonalds for lunch?" To which the mother responds, "I'm sorry honey, we don't have time today, maybe another day, okay?" Again, the child responds, "You're so mean, you never do what I want to do!"

Children level such accusations when they do not get their own way. No one in their right mind believes for one moment that a person is "mean" because she decides not to grant every request that a friend makes. Additionally, parents are not being cruel or uncaring when they fail to fulfill every childish desire. Using the word — "mean" in this case is simply viewed as juvenile immaturity and displays the inability of the child to really put forth the effort to develop a convincing argument.

Therefore, if you plan to take the time to engage on the playground of cultural trends, please do everyone a favor and play by the rules of proper debate etiquette, because when you toss words around like you are throwing stones, most open minded people are going to think that you really have not thought through your position long enough to make an adequate defense.

© Scott Hyland