4 ms·
That's confusing coincidence with causality. You can't prove "complete lack of love", whatever that means, killed them.
by reddytowns 10y ago
That's confusing coincidence with causality. You can't prove "complete lack of love", whatever that means, killed them.
- klibertp 10y agoI used "complete lack of love" as a short version of what another commenter wrote: "horrific orphanage experiences, growing up abused, and a complete lack of love". I can agree that "complete lack of love" is rather hard to define, but are you sure that it's just a coincidence, when an abused, humiliated, tortured person commits suicide?
- jacalata 10y agoI'm confident it did cause some of them to commit suicide. I am arguing, as someone else said - some of them made it. Nobody survived without food. Therefore it is silly to suggest love is more fundamental than food to survival.