3 ms·

> people need sustenance but that doesn't need to be water The analogy is apt enough IMHO, so let me stretch it. You wouldn't tell someone holding a melon the

> people need sustenance but that doesn't need to be water The analogy is apt enough IMHO, so let me stretch it. You wouldn't tell someone holding a melon they absolutely need water or they'll die. You'd tell them to eat the melon, and see if they can get more water from there. If all their hydration ends up coming from different sources than pure water, you wouldn't tell them they're screwed. The "love yourself" sounds the same to me. There's a thousand ways people can deal with themselves. Self preservation, understanding what they bring to others, what they mean to others why they're needed can and will happen outside of what people call "love". In particular that "advice" will be pushed toward people who can be in the worst place to reinterpret and adapt it to their needs.

mmooss 1y ago
> There's a thousand ways people can deal with themselves. Self preservation, understanding what they bring to others, what they mean to others why they're needed can and will happen outside of what people call "love". But those things don't provide love, which is (also) essential. People need love even to pursue self-preservation and helping others; it's the people without love that commit s*de. Why is it important to build a model that excludes love, which seems obvious and overwhelmingly present?
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  I think the focus on love blurs the message, while ironically putting the bar a lot higher depending on what the person perceives as love. To put it a bit bluntly, there's a laziness in wording it that way that IMHO comes with a real cost.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > blurs the message We're starting to go in circles becauase I think you are assuming there is some other message. Love is the fundamental of the message (see GP), according to almost everyone with expertise and many others who have thought about it and experienced it (as far as I know). That doesn't make it undeniable; still I think we need to address it to go forward. On what grounds do you dismiss it? Inconvenience isn't related to truth.

mmooss 1y ago

> There's a thousand ways people can deal with themselves. Self preservation, understanding what they bring to others, what they mean to others why they're needed can and will happen outside of what people call "love". But those things don't provide love, which is (also) essential. People need love even to pursue self-preservation and helping others; it's the people without love that commit s*de. Why is it important to build a model that excludes love, which seems obvious and overwhelmingly present?

makeitdouble 1y ago
I think the focus on love blurs the message, while ironically putting the bar a lot higher depending on what the person perceives as love. To put it a bit bluntly, there's a laziness in wording it that way that IMHO comes with a real cost.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > blurs the message We're starting to go in circles becauase I think you are assuming there is some other message. Love is the fundamental of the message (see GP), according to almost everyone with expertise and many others who have thought about it and experienced it (as far as I know). That doesn't make it undeniable; still I think we need to address it to go forward. On what grounds do you dismiss it? Inconvenience isn't related to truth.