Loving everybody isn’t as crackerjack as it appears.
You can hate everything a person DOES and still love them.
You can hate everything a person BELIEVES IN and still love them.
You can hate everything a person THINKS and still love them.
Love is not a substitute word for “agree” or “condone”. It is something different.
=
Some people have called me Aspie – I don’t know if I am, but I’m certainly SOMEWHERE on the autistic spectrum.
That’s me in 1983 at the age of 11. I breathe algorithms in my head. My own pseudo-code. Aspie isn’t an excuse.
==
But I can break it down.
Go back in your code to the variable for “Love”.
Find all synonyms for Love.
What are your synonyms for Love?
That is where our programs divert.
===
Ok. It seems the synonyms are more or less in order.
Progressing:
What is the object of love? You are the subject. The “lover”. Love is the verb – the ‘action of love’. Then, there is the object of love.
What is the object of love?
==
But, what is the object of love?
If I say, “I love Christopher Tremblay”, what Christopher Tremblay am I loving? What is the object within the container of Christopher Tremblay ?
==
This may be the point of divergence and why our programs are compiling with different results.
==
You have returned to an external definition of love.
What if the soul was not comprised of values and behaviors that were observables?
==
“Then how would you differentiate one soul from another?”
You would not have to.
==
You don’t have to trust somebody you love. I love people that I wouldn’t trust in a million years.
==
I’m not even Christian – I’m agnostic. Been so for a long time. But I was raised with the values and understand them.
==
No. You don’t have to be tolerant of their actions or help their actions.
Separate action from being.
==
Intolerance is not a noun that stands without an object. You are “Intolerant of” something. What is that something? That makes a difference.
==
Yes, intolerance of poor character. But that is where love comes in. Consider:
Why would you CARE if someone had poor character at all?
==
Then you lock the person with poor character away from the innocents so that:
a) the innocent is protected
b) the person with poor character is protected against his/her own tendencies.
That’s an expression of love.
==
Love would be: It’s not that the wheat *is* cake, but that the wheat has the _potential to be_ cake.
==
Public opinion to me, is generally _not_ love. Public opinion is a merciless battleground and public opinion has no soul.
==
Also, I do not see people-as-trees. People are people. Trees are trees.
==
There needs to be laws. Prosecution of crimes. Justice. People need to be separated when they are disruptive to society by causing physical harm to its members.
They are put into another society. Prison system. This is an act of mercy for the prisoners and the greater society alike.
==
Well, they have and do. The justice system is deeply flawed. But, vigilante justice is not a better substitute.
==
When Megan’s Law came out (3 tiers of sex crimes for against children and public notifications), I I was living in New Jersey USA where it came out. Names of offenders were published in the newspapers. Subject to the fires of public opinion.
One man took it upon himself to break into a sex offenders home and kill the man he saw sleeping there.
He killed the wrong man.
==
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]