Is love really blind?

silentpilot6 said:And you have seemingly dedicated yours to attacking me whenever the opportunity arises.😵

I am not undermining anyone; I am simply expressing my bewilderment at their actions...

Legion, I’m sorry if you feel targeted—I despise personal attacks. I am simply offering a critique of your crude and primitive arguments!

PS. If you're feeling baffled, maybe ask yourself why everyone else isn't acting like you.

cosmictinker21 said:it was all a dream, a whirlwind, a storm passing through...

But honestly, those are still masterpieces compared to the nonsense our mothers, friends, glossy magazines, social media, the local clique, and poorly written romance novels feed us to create these completely warped expectations of how love should actually work...

We spend our lives learning about Picasso, Gothic cathedrals, corporate management, nanotechnology, quasars, or the latest breakthrough in cancer treatment or antidepressants, but we never actually learn anything about love.🤷😢

So this thread is about self-awareness, complacency, and consciousness...

And we didn't even get astronomy in our school curriculum! That always baffled me. Just an off-topic thought, but it hit me just now.

Sean Cruz said:😁
That old saying holds true: You are who you associate with. I actually held back from mentioning roasted rabbits just so I wouldn't upset Vess.

What seems odd to you? Is it that I missed the intersection, or that I don't struggle with math? 🤣
It's a metaphor, obviously. 😉

They say the first ten years are the hardest 😁 while you're struggling to find an intersection, completely unaware that you actually have a union. Some realize it early, some late, and some never at all. 😛🙂

As an anti-speciesist, I’m constantly exposed to this stuff, and frankly, it’s a daily drain.

Anti-speciesists view the world through a different lens—species isn't the deciding factor. We aren't anthropocentrists.

For people like me, there isn't much distinction between children and pets, except for one simple matter of preference: kids tend to get under my skin, whereas animals are a constant source of joy and entertainment.

It boils down to this: I find humans as a species rather unappealing, while animals are generally fine. Plus, they are the ones being oppressed in this world, which naturally drives deeper empathy toward them.

lonegardener said:The strange part is that you only really grasped the intersection through the example of an empty set. Otherwise, the whole concept of a set intersection seems incredibly intuitive and easy to wrap your head around to me.

As for the metaphor... hmm. I think I took it the wrong way. Maybe I’m just naturally prone to pessimism, or maybe I’m just being a realist? 😍

Well, clearly, I’m just a bit of an odd duck. 😍 Even I can't quite wrap my head around why I struggled with such a simple concept, though I vividly remember how much effort my teachers put into trying to explain what an intersection actually was. 😁

As for the metaphor... hmm. I think I took it a bit too literally. Maybe I’m just a pessimist by nature, or maybe I'm just being a realist? 😍

It feels like the principle here is: I'm not graceful, but I am incredibly awkward. 🤣

Just kidding. 🙂

Drew Morgan said:As an anti-speciesist, I’m constantly exposed to this stuff, and frankly, it’s a daily drain.

Anti-speciesists view the world through a different lens—species isn't the deciding factor. We aren't anthropocentrists.

For people like me, there isn't much distinction between children and pets, except for one simple matter of preference: kids tend to get under my skin, whereas animals are a constant source of joy and entertainment.

It boils down to this: I find humans as a species rather unappealing, while animals are generally fine. Plus, they are the ones being oppressed in this world, which naturally drives deeper empathy toward them.

Vess, I don't like all kids either. I love my own child and a few others, but generally speaking, I'm not a fan. Animals, however, are almost all dear to me. 🙂 That said, I still eat meat and don't carry around a massive weight of guilt over it. By the way, you and I have veered completely off-topic here. 😳

Alright, let’s wrap this up: love isn't blind, but being infatuated? That definitely is. Love and infatuation aren't the same thing, regardless of how much people try to romanticize it. Real love is something that actually builds over time through shared experiences and life lived together. When you're just caught up in that initial rush, you're basically just living inside a projection of your own ideals... ☕ Honestly, if you haven't felt the distinction between the two by now, you're either totally inexperienced, too young and naive, or you've got some seriously skewed ideas about romance—which, frankly, could end up costing you quite a bit later on in life. 🙂

Drew Morgan said:Legion, I’m sorry if you feel targeted—I despise personal attacks. I am simply offering a critique of your crude and primitive arguments!

PS. If you're feeling baffled, maybe ask yourself why everyone else isn't acting like you.

I don't recall anyone else besides you describing my positions as blunt or unrefined. 🤷

My surprise is directed solely toward human folly. 🤷

Look, we already established this isn't some trivial matter. Just look at the ongoing mess involving poor Mid. He’s far from stupid—his enrollment numbers prove it, and you don't major in physics without a serious brain. This isn't an intelligence issue; it's purely psychological, and he let himself get dragged into this chaos by a girl who is a walking disaster zone. Mid sees the situation for exactly what it is, but there’s nothing he can actually do to fix it. Though, I suppose he's fallen into that classic "savior complex" trap.

The bottom line? Despite everything, he still feels like he loves her. It defies all logic, but that's just how it goes.

Drew Morgan said:As an anti-speciesist, I’m constantly exposed to this stuff, and frankly, it’s a daily drain.

Anti-speciesists view the world through a different lens—species isn't the deciding factor. We aren't anthropocentrists.

For people like me, there isn't much distinction between children and pets, except for one simple matter of preference: kids tend to get under my skin, whereas animals are a constant source of joy and entertainment.

It boils down to this: I find humans as a species rather unappealing, while animals are generally fine. Plus, they are the ones being oppressed in this world, which naturally drives deeper empathy toward them.

Are you seriously suggesting that in an emergency—say, a building fire—you’d actually hesitate between saving a child or a rabbit? Let me push that scenario a bit further: imagine you have to choose between a neighbor's kid who just moved in next door and your own pet rabbit.

Sean Cruz said:Vess, I don't like all kids either. I love my own child and a few others, but generally speaking, I'm not a fan. Animals, however, are almost all dear to me. 🙂 That said, I still eat meat and don't carry around a massive weight of guilt over it. By the way, you and I have veered completely off-topic here. 😳

It's off-topic, sure, but maybe not. When it comes to love—I see people who worship their kids, and then there are those who adore their cats in the exact same way.

Personally, I don't think I could ever love anyone like that, because that kind of devotion always ends up stripping away the freedom of the object being loved.

Apply that to romantic love—do you truly love someone if you're busy limiting their freedom? I personally can't get behind that concept.

I should mention the book Awakening by Anthony de Melo. He hits the nail on the head regarding this issue.

lonegardener said:Are you seriously suggesting that in an emergency—say, a building fire—you’d actually hesitate between saving a child or a rabbit? Let me push that scenario a bit further: imagine you have to choose between a neighbor's kid who just moved in next door and your own pet rabbit.

In a crisis, instinct takes the wheel. It's impossible to debate a "what if" scenario when adrenaline is pumping. I might not even be able to save anyone. Purely logically, I would prioritize whoever offers the highest probability of survival.

If your argument is that a child simply by being human somehow "deserves" salvation more—well, that logic is fundamentally flawed.

Drew Morgan said:It's off-topic, sure, but maybe not. When it comes to love—I see people who worship their kids, and then there are those who adore their cats in the exact same way.

Personally, I don't think I could ever love anyone like that, because that kind of devotion always ends up stripping away the freedom of the object being loved.

Apply that to romantic love—do you truly love someone if you're busy limiting their freedom? I personally can't get behind that concept.

I should mention the book Awakening by Anthony de Melo. He hits the nail on the head regarding this issue.

I simply can't put those two in the same category. Not even close.

Personally, I don't think I could ever adore anyone in the way I've seen, because that kind of devotion often involves significantly restricting the freedom of the object of one's affection.

So, what about your rabbit? Do you actually believe he has any freedom?

Now, project that onto romantic love—do you truly love someone if you are limiting their freedom? Personally, I have a hard time with that concept.

I don't believe in restricting freedom in love either, though there are certain boundaries regarding how you respect a partner.

I have to mention the book awakening by Anthony de Melo again. I feel he provided a very accurate perspective on this issue.

I haven't read that book.

Drew Morgan said:In a crisis, instinct takes the wheel. It's impossible to debate a "what if" scenario when adrenaline is pumping. I might not even be able to save anyone. Purely logically, I would prioritize whoever offers the highest probability of survival.

If your argument is that a child simply by being human somehow "deserves" salvation more—well, that logic is fundamentally flawed.

I’m not really trying to argue about who "deserves" what—to be honest, the whole concept of merit feels a bit fuzzy to me. But if it comes down to it, I’d save a child over 14,000 rabbits every single time. Like I told you, this instinct is just hardwired into my DNA. I don't feel the need to justify it with logic or try to prove some objective "higher value." It’s just how I am. You’re more than free to disagree, of course.

Don't you dare try to tie this back to "common sense" right now. LOL.

Sean Cruz said:I simply can't put those two in the same category. Not even close.

Personally, I don't think I could ever adore anyone in the way I've seen, because that kind of devotion often involves significantly restricting the freedom of the object of one's affection.

So, what about your rabbit? Do you actually believe he has any freedom?

Now, project that onto romantic love—do you truly love someone if you are limiting their freedom? Personally, I have a hard time with that concept.

I don't believe in restricting freedom in love either, though there are certain boundaries regarding how you respect a partner.

I have to mention the book awakening by Anthony de Melo again. I feel he provided a very accurate perspective on this issue.

I haven't read that book.

You don't need to take my word for it; just look around. You'll see the pattern everywhere. Every individual is different.

Sean Cruz said:I simply can't put those two in the same category. Not even close.

Personally, I don't think I could ever adore anyone in the way I've seen, because that kind of devotion often involves significantly restricting the freedom of the object of one's affection.

So, what about your rabbit? Do you actually believe he has any freedom?

Now, project that onto romantic love—do you truly love someone if you are limiting their freedom? Personally, I have a hard time with that concept.

I don't believe in restricting freedom in love either, though there are certain boundaries regarding how you respect a partner.

I have to mention the book awakening by Anthony de Melo again. I feel he provided a very accurate perspective on this issue.

I haven't read that book.

He does. He isn't stuck in a cage; he runs the show, and we even take him out to roam through the meadows. Honestly, his life is pretty much what he wanted when he was desperately trying to claw his way out of a box at Petco. I spotted him there and bought him on impulse. He was unique—you could see his drive for independence. Then again, how much can anyone truly claim to be free within the constraints of physical existence? In a sense, he’s freer than I am because he doesn't have to worry about survival. Of course, the trade-off is that we manhandle him sometimes, which he hates. We need some kind of payoff too; we aren't just here to be servants.😍

When I compare that to my friend who keeps her cats locked indoors "for their own safety" (she's not the only one)... well, that's selfish love. It's all about her ego, not them.

Sean Cruz said:I simply can't put those two in the same category. Not even close.

Personally, I don't think I could ever adore anyone in the way I've seen, because that kind of devotion often involves significantly restricting the freedom of the object of one's affection.

So, what about your rabbit? Do you actually believe he has any freedom?

Now, project that onto romantic love—do you truly love someone if you are limiting their freedom? Personally, I have a hard time with that concept.

I don't believe in restricting freedom in love either, though there are certain boundaries regarding how you respect a partner.

I have to mention the book awakening by Anthony de Melo again. I feel he provided a very accurate perspective on this issue.

I haven't read that book.

That sounds more like setting boundaries to protect your own autonomy, whereas breathing down someone's neck is a total disaster. Psychologists teach us that sacrificing your own freedom just to soothe someone else's excessive psychological needs leads to absolute chaos.

Sean Cruz said:I simply can't put those two in the same category. Not even close.

Personally, I don't think I could ever adore anyone in the way I've seen, because that kind of devotion often involves significantly restricting the freedom of the object of one's affection.

So, what about your rabbit? Do you actually believe he has any freedom?

Now, project that onto romantic love—do you truly love someone if you are limiting their freedom? Personally, I have a hard time with that concept.

I don't believe in restricting freedom in love either, though there are certain boundaries regarding how you respect a partner.

I have to mention the book awakening by Anthony de Melo again. I feel he provided a very accurate perspective on this issue.

I haven't read that book.

It's an excellent book—witty and brutal. It's only 60 pages and you can download it online. A great guy from the Philosophy forum recommended it to me.

lonegardener said:I’m not really trying to argue about who "deserves" what—to be honest, the whole concept of merit feels a bit fuzzy to me. But if it comes down to it, I’d save a child over 14,000 rabbits every single time. Like I told you, this instinct is just hardwired into my DNA. I don't feel the need to justify it with logic or try to prove some objective "higher value." It’s just how I am. You’re more than free to disagree, of course.

Don't you dare try to tie this back to "common sense" right now. LOL.

Anti-speciesism has been part of my soul since before I was born. 😍 And frankly, it's the only logical stance!

silentpilot6 said:I don't recall anyone else besides you describing my positions as blunt or unrefined. 🤷

My surprise is directed solely toward human folly. 🤷

They aren't primitive, certainly—there’s a legitimate point here that I actually
kind of agree with, even if the delivery is a bit blunt (maybe even a little petty). 😁

Drew Morgan said:Anti-speciesism has been part of my soul since before I was born. 😍 And frankly, it's the only logical stance!

It 'seems' logical? WOW, I'm noticing progress here. Or rather, it seems to me that I'm noticing progress. 😍

They’re being downright primitive here—reducing everything to a simple "I would never do that" logic.

Essentially, he’s stripping his own arguments of any nuance just to avoid dealing with the actual variables at play.

lonegardener said:It 'seems' logical? WOW, I'm noticing progress here. Or rather, it seems to me that I'm noticing progress. 😍

I already laid out exactly why that specific argument is flawed in another thread.

Jamie Reyes73 said:They aren't primitive, certainly—there’s a legitimate point here that I actually
kind of agree with, even if the delivery is a bit blunt (maybe even a little petty). 😁

And you're hung up on why I called your avatar "sensitive"... 🤣...
Fine then... if I'm being "crude" and "primitive," I suppose those who would prioritize saving a rabbit over a child 😵 are just "enlightened" souls who have moved past such "limited" thinking... Good grief. If I had the choice to save a single child at the cost of every rabbit on Earth, I wouldn't hesitate for a second.