We each feel a deep strong need to love others, and to be loved by others. (Self-love doesn’t satisfy these needs.) You might think we could pair up and all be very satisfied. But this doesn’t happen for two main reasons:
You are right that this is one of our essential problems. However you have framed the problem in such way ("figure out how we might all be much loved") that no reliable solution can be attained. If you sincerely are interested in the solution then consider the possibility of love itself being the problem: http://actualfreedom.com.au
Just because you fail to see the relevance, it doesn't mean it is not there.
I find it slightly amusing, and slightly sad, that you comment here and above (missing the point in that comment, too) on such a topic in the way that you have. A very brief audit of your commentary here and elsewhere strongly indicates that you have no interest whatsoever in honest conversation, and so I will no longer entertain any of it.
Of course dating and online shopping are different in several ways ... that's true of all analogies, you stupid intellectually dishonest fuck. But the differences aren't relevant to my point about your absurd moronic "could just as easily be hurting as much as harming" argument. You completely ignore my point about blivets -- which you apparently are too stupid to realize are impossible objects. Unlike searching for blivets, finding compatible partners is not impossible because they actually do exist, you cretin.
You're right that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, but that has nothing to do with an "interest in horn blowing" and everything to do with your above mentioned profound intellectual ineptitude.
Over and out.
vvv Substance-free bullshit -- so predictable. vvv
Actually, it is not at all like saying that online shopping hurts as much as it helps. Online dating shares some qualities with online shopping, but it's also different in several ways. The ways in it differs in motivation and in function are quite obvious.
A conversation about shopping versus dating, as a starting point, could be an interesting one, but given your comment it seems you're more interested in horn blowing than conversation.
This is like saying that on-line shopping hurts as much as it [helps] because people looking for blivets discover that they can't buy them on-line any more than they can get them at a local store. This line of thinking is profoundly intellectually inept.
(chuckle) You must be confused UWIR, such a concept could never fly. Next you’ll be telling us that in this putative show one of the hillbillies ends up manifesting more true class than any of the ostensibly-classier rich folks who surround him.
Please elaborate on "...at the actual scales of love this just doesn’t seem right to me. Love instead seems scarce at the margin," particularly with respect to imaginary people. I don't get this claim at all.
Occasionally one hears suggestions of people using imaginary or distant-celebrity lovers (lovees?) as substitutes for real ones, but always with the implication that they would drop it in a heartbeat given a 'real' relationship.
All of what you say is true, and I'd best a significant amount of money (at moderate odds) that the blog author is male and the bulk of the readers are male.
OTOH, the original posting seems to follow a male tack on the issue of love, at least within the context of US culture -- texts about love for women tend to be oriented more toward "finding The One" than "increasing the amount I'm loved by various people".
And the tenor of the comments I've seen in this blog seems to be male-typical for our culture.
"Hillbilly" is more of a description of class than wealth. In fact, I believe there was a show exploring the idea that hillbillies given great wealth would continue exhibiting hillbilly traits.
I find it worth noting that the explicit content of your post is that one should curtail one's time spent in primarily-male groups, and the implicit content of your post is that you expect your reader to be male (expecting your reader to be lesbian is also consistent with your post, but unlikely), thus suggesting that you believe OB to be overwhelmingly male.
Very curious about your definition of "love". You seem to be talking about attraction, affinity, desire, etc. rather than "love".
Especially when you claim that it's even possible to love a fictional character, I tend to think your working definition of "love" is faulty.
You are right that this is one of our essential problems. However you have framed the problem in such way ("figure out how we might all be much loved") that no reliable solution can be attained. If you sincerely are interested in the solution then consider the possibility of love itself being the problem: http://actualfreedom.com.au
The ways in it differs in motivation and in function are quite obvious.
What are the ways they're relevantly different?
Just because you fail to see the relevance, it doesn't mean it is not there.
I find it slightly amusing, and slightly sad, that you comment here and above (missing the point in that comment, too) on such a topic in the way that you have. A very brief audit of your commentary here and elsewhere strongly indicates that you have no interest whatsoever in honest conversation, and so I will no longer entertain any of it.
Of course dating and online shopping are different in several ways ... that's true of all analogies, you stupid intellectually dishonest fuck. But the differences aren't relevant to my point about your absurd moronic "could just as easily be hurting as much as harming" argument. You completely ignore my point about blivets -- which you apparently are too stupid to realize are impossible objects. Unlike searching for blivets, finding compatible partners is not impossible because they actually do exist, you cretin.
You're right that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, but that has nothing to do with an "interest in horn blowing" and everything to do with your above mentioned profound intellectual ineptitude.
Over and out.
vvv Substance-free bullshit -- so predictable. vvv
Actually, it is not at all like saying that online shopping hurts as much as it helps. Online dating shares some qualities with online shopping, but it's also different in several ways. The ways in it differs in motivation and in function are quite obvious.
A conversation about shopping versus dating, as a starting point, could be an interesting one, but given your comment it seems you're more interested in horn blowing than conversation.
It's fascinating to see autistics trying to understand love etc.
"You might think we could pair up and all be very satisfied."
Yeah, sure; Robin and I would make a great couple ... we just need to enter each other's names into our love generators; what could be simpler?
This is like saying that on-line shopping hurts as much as it [helps] because people looking for blivets discover that they can't buy them on-line any more than they can get them at a local store. This line of thinking is profoundly intellectually inept.
vvv and more of the same
(chuckle) You must be confused UWIR, such a concept could never fly. Next you’ll be telling us that in this putative show one of the hillbillies ends up manifesting more true class than any of the ostensibly-classier rich folks who surround him.
Please elaborate on "...at the actual scales of love this just doesn’t seem right to me. Love instead seems scarce at the margin," particularly with respect to imaginary people. I don't get this claim at all.
Occasionally one hears suggestions of people using imaginary or distant-celebrity lovers (lovees?) as substitutes for real ones, but always with the implication that they would drop it in a heartbeat given a 'real' relationship.
All of what you say is true, and I'd best a significant amount of money (at moderate odds) that the blog author is male and the bulk of the readers are male.
OTOH, the original posting seems to follow a male tack on the issue of love, at least within the context of US culture -- texts about love for women tend to be oriented more toward "finding The One" than "increasing the amount I'm loved by various people".
And the tenor of the comments I've seen in this blog seems to be male-typical for our culture.
"Hillbilly" is more of a description of class than wealth. In fact, I believe there was a show exploring the idea that hillbillies given great wealth would continue exhibiting hillbilly traits.
I find it worth noting that the explicit content of your post is that one should curtail one's time spent in primarily-male groups, and the implicit content of your post is that you expect your reader to be male (expecting your reader to be lesbian is also consistent with your post, but unlikely), thus suggesting that you believe OB to be overwhelmingly male.
Once knew a Marks,
He didn't bite as bad as he barks.
Knew a Diamond once.Wasn't in the rough.Glowed brightly.For its bosses.In Wichita.
Are you alleging that GMU's tenure system is a sham?