The Answer to All of Our Problems: Love

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So a computer gets its power from an outlet because of a relationship with the power outlet? I thought they were connected by a cord. A fetus gets its nutrition through a relationship, and not through an umbilical cord. This is the nonsense you are implying.

Wow.

No that is your nonsense interpretation. A relationship is a connection in all instances, a connection is not a relationship in all instances.


So now it is about the interpretation of the word connection.

Have you really been arguing all the time that humans are not connected through a physical cable?(besides babies and mothers)

Really guy?

Is there anyone that wouldnt agree with this given?

Why would you keep arguing a given, and not point out that this is is what you mean exactly, but instead letting this moronic discussion limp on?

Really, absolutely nothing you say or have said makes any sense.

Can you back up this "fact of nature" with proof, like I can prove that Koala bears are not bears.?

?

a reply to: RogueWave

Wow.

No that is your nonsense interpretation. A relationship is a connection in all instances, a connection is not a relationship in all instances.

You’re comparing connections you make in your imagination to connections that exist in the world. This is the extent of your sophistry.

Have you really been arguing all the time that humans are not connected through a physical cable?(besides babies and mothers)

Really guy?

Yes, boy. Are you really arguing they are connected through “levels of understanding”?

Really, absolutely nothing you say or have said makes any sense.

Which says nothing about your “level of understanding” at all, right? I thought we were connected here.

Can you back up this "fact of nature" with proof, like I can prove that Koala bears are not bears.?

Yes. The fact that we can put something else between two people, maybe an ocean, maybe a mountain, hell, even miles and miles of space, proves they are not connected.

Can you prove a human connection is a connection? I've answered all your questions. You haven't answered any of mine. Give me this one at least.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Is there anyone that wouldnt agree with this given? Why would you keep arguing a given, and not point out that this is is what you mean exactly, but instead letting this moronic discussion limp on?

You didn't answer this for some reason.

An answer could make further duscussion unnecessary.

Yes. The fact that we can put something else between two people, maybe an ocean, maybe a mountain, hell, even miles and miles of space, proves they are not connected.

Does a family member seize to be a family member when he is on the other side of the ocean?

Yes, boy. Are you really arguing they are connected through “levels of understanding”?

This was a specific reply to your claim that language is not a connection. I said that a level of understanding as a result of the use of language is a form of connection between people.

Can you prove a human connection is a connection?

One only has to open any dictionary and see that a relationship is a connection. But since you seem to have your own semantic rules and interpretations that the rest of the world doesn't share with you, there is no rational argument that you will accept.

a reply to: RogueWave

One only has to open any dictionary and see that a relationship is a connection. But since you seem to have your own semantic rules that the rest of the world doesn't share with you, there is no rational argument that you will accept.

I’m sorry, but we do not open the dictionary to find the truth of claims. In your logic, if you opened the dictionary, and it said the Earth was the center of the universe, that proves the Earth is the center of the universe.

I already mentioned your appeal to authority is a fallacy. You should check the dictionary to see what that means.

Does a family member seize to be a family member when he is on the other side of the ocean?

You mean “cease” to be a family member?

Your question doesn’t answer my question. Can you prove a human connection is a connection?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I already mentioned your appeal to authority is a fallacy. You should check the dictionary to see what that means.

Really, we are communicating with words. There is set of rules that is accepted by everybody that uses words. Now there are cases where people with mental conditions for intance make up their own set of rules, and this causes confusion.

If you are using a different set of rules than the rest of the world, there is no way that the rest of the world will ever understand you.

The fallacy is all yours.

You mean “cease” to be a family member?

Yes.

Can you prove a human connection is a connection?

We first need to clear about your definition of connection? A physical cable?

Again you ignored this,

Is there anyone that wouldnt agree with this given? Why would you keep arguing a given, and not point out that this is is what you mean exactly, but instead letting this moronic discussion limp on?

So what is your definition.

I’m sorry, but we do not open the dictionary to find the truth of claims. In your logic, if you opened the dictionary, and it said the Earth was the center of the universe, that proves the Earth is the center of the universe.

No because we are not talking about phyiscal reality, we are talking about semantics, about words. A dictionary is the perfect place to seek truth about the meaning of words.

a reply to: RogueWave

Really, we are communicating with words. There is set of rules that is accepted by everybody that uses words. Now there are cases where people with mental conditions for intance make up their own set of rules, and this causes confusion.

If you are using a different set of rules than the rest of the world, there is no way that the rest of the world will ever understand you.

The fallacy is all yours.

I’m trying to use the rules of argument to debate a point. What rules are you using exactly? Just let me know what they are and I’ll start following them diligently.

And if you can point out the fallacy, I’ll concede my use of poor reasoning. I’d be much obliged.

We first need to clear about your definition of connection? A physical cable?

You’ve already quoted me on this, but I’ll accommodate you further.

Yes, a cable is an example of a connection. Two things can be connected by a cable, meaning there is a cable between them. If there was no cable they would be not connected, meaning they are separate from each other—meaning they are disconnected, which is the opposite of connected. The same goes for a bridge between two stretches of land, a fruit and the tree it hangs from, a dog chained to a post—once these connections are broken, they are the direct opposite of connected.

No because we are not talking about phyiscal reality, we are talking about semantics, about words. A dictionary is the perfect place to seek truth about the meaning of words.

I am talking about reality, you’re talking about words. I could simply point to you in reality what a connection is, you cannot.

Once again, and for the last time, dictionaries record common usage, the commonly accepted meanings, not truth. If you want to prove that you agree with the dictionary, you have already done so. Yes you agree with the dictionary; that’s obvious. But it is a fact that the dictionary, words and their meanings change. The truth does not.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, a cable is an example of a connection. Two things can be connected by a cable, meaning there is a cable between them. If there was no cable they would be not connected, meaning they are separate from each other—meaning they are disconnected, which is the opposite of connected. The same goes for a bridge between two stretches of land, a fruit and the tree it hangs from, a dog chained to a post—once these connections are broken, they are the direct opposite of connected.

You are talking about physical connections. This is one interpretatation of the word connection. Why do you act like like this is the only possible interpretation of the word?

Who says that a connection has to be physical to be called a connection. Only you, according to the rest of the world, not so much.

Why are you arguing that humans are not connected by a physical, cable like connection, when this is a given, and noone can disagree with that?

Again, I ask you, if this was your point the whole time, why didn't you say so right away?

I am talking about reality, you’re talking about words. I could simply point to you in reality what a connection is, you cannot.

I can very easily. A relationship is a connection.

But it is a fact that the dictionary, words and their meanings change. The truth does not.

What are you on about. So what has changed since when, and from what. It seems that the meaning is only different in your mind, while for the rest of the world, the different valid interpretations of the word have not changed at all.

What truth are you talking about. You are creating your own truth by ignoring the other meanings of the word, and only accepting one meaning.

This is obviously a discussion about semantics in which you are the single authority on the meaning of words, while the agreement on the meaning of words by the rest of the world, as found in dictionaries, is apparently meaningless in your own little world.

How can you ever lose an argument if you have your own exclusive set of rules when it comes to the words you are using.

Twisted.....

a reply to: RogueWave

You are talking about physical connections. This is one [interpretation] of the word connection. Why do you act like like this is the only possible interpretation of the word?

I’m not. I’ve already argued your interpretation is a misnomer. You have yet to refute the argument. Must we go over this again?

Who says that a connection has to be physical to be called a connection[?] Only you, according to the rest of the world, not so much.

I do. Who wants to know?

An appeal to the populace.

According to Copernicus, the Earth revolved around the sun. According to the rest of the world at the time, not so much. Therefor, Copernicus was wrong. No amounts of silly string could connect your logic together.

Why are you arguing that humans are not connected by a physical, cable like connection, when this is a given, and [no one] can disagree with that?

Again, I ask you, if this was your point the whole time, why didn't you say so right away?

Straw man. That’s not my argument, nor my point the whole time, and I think you know that. In fact, you’ve quoted my arguments ad nauseum, had ample time to think about them, and you still conveniently misrepresent them, likely on purpose. Here they are again:

All connections are physical.

A human connection isn’t a connection.

“I am talking about reality, you’re talking about words. I could simply point to you in reality what a connection is, you cannot. “

I can very easily. A relationship is a connection.

You can type it easily, sure. But point to me in reality what connects two things in a relationship. A picture would suffice.

This is obviously a discussion about semantics in which you are the single authority on the meaning of words, while the agreement on the meaning of words by the rest of the world, as found in dictionaries, is apparently meaningless in your own little world.

I’ve provided arguments for my reasoning, all of which can be refuted, all of which you’ve avoided. My arguments are falsifiable. All you have to do is provide argument or evidence that proves the opposite. I never once said or implied “I am an authority; therefor I am right”. You are the one appealing to authority. “Listen to the dictionary because its the dictionary”. “Most people believe it is this way so it must be true”. “My set of rules or no rules at all”. Sound familiar?

Hi. I wanted to weigh in on this earlier, but had to go out, and now I see it's taken a certain direction, and I feel intrusive, so I apologize for that, but want to post anyway.

Firstly, I love humanity. Secondly, I often find people very difficult. Those two characteristics have sometimes created an inner conflict, and I have had to practice a sort of conflict resolution, to deal with it. There are people I see quite often in one capacity or another, that I feel no love for whatsoever, other than they are a part of humanity. I don't hate them. I just simply don't "love" them. In fact, there's not an army of people I feel genuine love for. Unconditional love? Even fewer.

But what I do offer is 'charity'. If I see a homeless person sitting on the curb in the mornings and he looks cold and damp, I will buy him a hot cup of coffee and a breakfast sandwich. I don't do this because I love him. I do it as an act of charity, which in some ways is a form of love, or akin to love. I send donations to charities because I love humanity.

From reading several posts on this thread (I didn't read them all) I see I'm not the only one with such a conflict. It's not fair to ask us to 'love' the mass murderer, or the serial killer. But giving charity - even if it's a kind word and a pat on the back to someone who needs encouragement, works as well.

So when I see the type of thoughts that have gone into the OP, requesting 'love' in the world and for the world, I can resolutely replace the word 'love', with the word 'charity'. Works for me, and it's more realistic.

eta: My intention was not to end the conversation, so please ignore my post! continue with your debate. Sorry.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I think your contribution is quite welcome to get this thread back on the rail

To me, my love, i love, in love, love for, love of, is not love, it is attraction and aimed at something or someone after contact.
Magnetic forces at play, attraction-repulsion.

For this to happen, it must affect us in a way, if something or someone does not affect us, we will just ignore it.

We are the root of this directed energy and we can do stupid things when we are affected, so called love or hate that blinds us as an example, the whole mumbo jumbo of our social struggles, politically, religiously and economically is based on attraction and repulsion.

In my view love has no direction, it is doing what needs to be done without 'i want, i must, i will, i can, i shall, i do' one does it because it needs to be done, virtue is the base of it.

When it is said that the answer to all our problems is 'love' - where is this thing, called 'love'. It may seem as though it is something that is missing and if we find it then there will be no problems anymore.
What is standing in the way of 'love'? What prevents love from being here? Fear. One must understand fear before one can realize love. The human has psychological fear - tomorrow is uncertain and there is a need to make tomorrow safe.
If one is worrying about how to be safe then that will not manifest love - fear and love cannot exist at the same time.

Tomorrow is uncertain and the mind will imagine 'tomorrow' and how to do tomorrow so it will be safe. If there was no tomorrow fear would not be there - it is past thoughts (memories) and future thoughts (anticipation) that make the body full of fear because no matter what the thoughts are presenting nothing can be done - you cannot do anything in the past or future because you are not there.
Love is underneath the fear. Love cannot be got but fear can lift away.