Damn, that's deep
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (100)
sorted by:
Everyone does. Because everyone had parents who should have done so and there is nothing a child could do that should change that. In which case you learn to love yourself as a consequence of growing up properly in such an environment. The lack of both these things is how men get caught in these death spirals.
You have gone so far into being the contrarian you can't even think beyond "nope nu uh, its wrong!"
I can think of plenty of reasons. And if your parents do love you, you should be grateful for that, as not everyone has that, rather than regarding it as an entitlement or your birthright.
[alwayswas.jpg.]
If a child commits any of those reasons, you can just as easily blame the parents for failing to raise them properly to lead to this conclusion. You fucking up, and then getting to opt out of your part of the bargain makes you the shitty person.
You being entitled to it doesn't absolve you of being grateful. That's just moving the goalpost to a completely new requirement now.
If you think so little of yourself, it actually makes sense now why you are arguing this point so strongly.
Isn't this just another way of denying free will?
Why should one be grateful for something that is an entitlement?
I think being contrarian has a fair amount of value, if it's not done mindlessly.
No, because the child still has their free will to do as they please, and so does the parent. However, the child has been influenced in their personality, values and thereby will by the parent's rearing. Unless you want to argue that people are 100% nature, their will will be influenced incredibly heavily by their parent's. Ergo, they hold considerable blame when a child, who we do not hold to the same standards as an adult as they are still maturing, commits an action.
Which means it is pure selfishness and denying their own culpability when they now deny that child love over something they do. They have the freedom to do so, regardless.
The same way I say thank you when someone whose job is to do something does that something. Taking something for granted has always been a negative act, regardless if it is in fact granted.
If you think this level of contrarian isn't mindless, then you really are losing your edge. Because all its doing is making you look dumber and everyone else double down because of how easy it is to pick your argument apart.
It's not contrarian, he's expressing it as a concept of entitlement. You are not entitled to Love, which is a very specific duty that your spouse/lover engages in with you as an individual responsibility and commitment to both you and the family you cultivate.
No it is being contrarian because "oh I meant this one specific definition of the word (that I never specified in the slightest) instead of the general everyone uses" is below his level of intelligence and retarded, so I won't entertain it.
Even going into that pit, you are absolutely entitled to love with your partner/spouse. If they are not providing that, then they are not keeping up with one of the expected, or outright stated, halves of the bargain and are grounds for being terminated. You are not entitled to anyone you choose loving you, but if someone enters a relationship with you you are absolutely entitled to their love.
Unless you/he want to argue that relationship's, and women, are purely transactional things that exist only for strict utilitarian means and emotions are just pure gravy on it.
Maybe it's just your location where it's different, but this is absolutely how "deserved to be loved" is used in common parlance where I, and apparently he, are at.
That love is an out-growth of that relationship. You are not entitled to such a relationship in the first place. It must be earned, and will never be granted.
You're still taking it the wrong way. Deserves and entitlement are used interchangeably in common parlance, and as such, there is no entitlement to being loved.
Trying to make one point of "this is exactly the definition that he was using and everyone I know uses" and then a different "these words are interchangeable and flip floppy about their use" really isn't a strong foot.
Regardless, you, like he, are doing everything possible to take the conclusion (a hard, strict 100% no one deserves love) and then working backwards by adding qualifier after qualifier to make that work when someone points out simple and easy times when someone does.
I'm taking it exactly as he said. "No one deserves to be loved" and have already disproven that. All you've said is "no no, we in (Europe like he is from) mean completely different things when we say common words."
Yes those are the words I also said repeated back to me, yet packaged as a rebuttal somehow.