Does love conquer all?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well does it? Is this age old theory/notion true? Why or why not? Does *love* at all conquer all?

[Dja Majista]

Gosh darn it. I'm really trying to think of how to argue this as is, but I can't get past the semantical issues:

What would it mean for love to "conquer" something?
And what exactly would love be conquering?

As an aside, aren't "maybe" and "not sure" the same thing?

[Psyquis52]

Love doesn't conquer all. "Hate" conquers all.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

And why is that?

[Psyquis52]

Look, every great conquest was started with someone hating someone else.

It's the absolute truth.

[Dja Majista]

bah, I don't have to hate someone to want their land. If I love land enough, I'm more likely to go out conquering.

[Psyquis52]

Liar! I know for a fact that hate has to exist in order for you to force someone else from their happy home.

[Dja Majista]

But what about this: "Nothing personal, but we have to kill you."
Happens all the time, especially in war. The important thing here is that we need to understand how we treat love, hate, and just flat out not caring.

For example: Do you have to hate some one to not care about them? Perhaps it's the other way around the other way around?
Also is hate a lack of love (as cold is a lack of heat) or is it simply love in the opposite direction, (as a negative number is to a positive number). In the ladder case, which I think is a better way to express it, there is room for the "don't care" being in the middle/neutral position, the zero.

[Psyquis52]

We're not talking about hate in relation to killing.
We're talking about hate in relation to conquering.
You name a great conquerer and I'll tell you who they hated.

[Dja Majista]

You can tell me who they hated all you want. I don't think that makes it the core drive that leaders need to conquer. Do you really think hate is all it takes to want to conquer something? Don't you have to have some kind of hunger for power, wealth, and/or land to actually be willing to get your hands dirty for it?

This is not to say of course that hate doesn't have a role here. Obviously, with the Native Americans, the colonists hated them enough to not care about them. And not caring about your enemy is a pretty good prerequisite for manifest destiny. But manifest destiny is more about obtaining land than driving people out of it for the heck of it.

And I might as well hold you to your last statement. Okay, educate me: Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 29, 2008 23:51:04 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Liar! I know for a fact that hate has to exist in order for you to force someone else from their happy home.

Or just greed.

[Dja Majista]

May 31, 2008 14:50:30 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

May 29, 2008 23:51:04 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Liar! I know for a fact that hate has to exist in order for you to force someone else from their happy home.

Or just greed.

greed A.K.A. love of money

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 31, 2008 17:23:04 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

May 31, 2008 14:50:30 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Or just greed.

greed A.K.A. love of money

I thought you couldn't truly "love" anything inanimate.

And that still conquers many things if it's true.

[Dja Majista]

Well, not as you love a person, but sure the word love can be used in regard to inanimate objects, so long as the two are understood as distinct. So which definition of love are we using?


and if it's love from person to person, what would it be conquering?

[tshern]

Love never conquers all because it comes with too many downsides. You have to work for it, it can drive you utterly crazy and no matter how much you have it you always want more. Anything starting from such bad premises is bound to be a lesser force in the universe, not its pinnacle.

[Psyquis52]

May 31, 2008 9:37:55 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

You can tell me who they hated all you want. I don't think that makes it the core drive that leaders need to conquer. Do you really think hate is all it takes to want to conquer something? Don't you have to have some kind of hunger for power, wealth, and/or land to actually be willing to get your hands dirty for it?

This is not to say of course that hate doesn't have a role here. Obviously, with the Native Americans, the colonists hated them enough to not care about them. And not caring about your enemy is a pretty good prerequisite for manifest destiny. But manifest destiny is more about obtaining land than driving people out of it for the heck of it.

And I might as well hold you to your last statement. Okay, educate me: Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander the Great.

Napoleon Bonaparte hated any country with a leader that was taller than him. So, pretty much anyone.
And Alexander the Great hated anyone that wasn't Roman.

Look this is easy but I have yet to see how any one of these people loved the other people's land so much they wanted to kill them.
I mean, can you prove to me that they conquered the other countries because they were so enamored with their land but not the people so much?

[Dja Majista]

What about power, wealth, fame? Hating the enemy certainly helps along the process of conquering, but you certainly wouldn't conquer some one if you had no desire for their land and power.
Seriously, almost every war before modern times was some kind of land dispute. Plus you don't really have to hate some one to take their land. You can just not care about them. I think there's a difference.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I think hate is like the opposite of love. How often do you hear of someone truly hating someone? Can you truly hate someone you don't know no different than you can't truly love them?

[Dja Majista]

Well, can hate be fueled through stereotypes? If that is the case then people are capable of hating everyone of a certain race/creed/gender without really knowing them. Or are things like racism and the sort just apathy? I'm a firm believer that you don't have to hate some one to do terrible things to them. You simply have to not care about them.

Following up what you said about knowing a person. Segregation and discrimination actually fits quite well with your idea. The racist may not know the victim per se. But they certainly think they do. We're capable of hating Osama bin Laden without really knowing him very well, yet we still know a little bit, or at least think we do, so I think everything fits sans the truly knowing part. You only have to think you know someone to love or hate them IMO.

[Psyquis52]

If you can truly love someone can't you hate them as well?

And to force someone from their home I think it takes more than just greed or envy. I'm rather jealous of my friend's Telecaster but that doesn't mean I'm going to kick his @#$ and take it from him.
At the same time I like that Scion down the street but I'm not going to take it from him.

And let's say the law no longer applies. I still don't do it. Why? Because I wouldn't wish said misfortune on anyone else.
A Telecaster's a terrible thing to take from a guy.

Now, don't you loathe that person for possessing something that you should have. Don't you hate them for showing it off, for holding it in front of you? Don't you think that greed can take you down the path to hate?

Hahaha! Join the dark side.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 12, 2008 22:11:06 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

If you can truly love someone can't you hate them as well?

And to force someone from their home I think it takes more than just greed or envy. I'm rather jealous of my friend's Telecaster but that doesn't mean I'm going to kick his @#$ and take it from him.
At the same time I like that Scion down the street but I'm not going to take it from him.

And let's say the law no longer applies. I still don't do it. Why? Because I wouldn't wish said misfortune on anyone else.
A Telecaster's a terrible thing to take from a guy.

Now, don't you loathe that person for possessing something that you should have. Don't you hate them for showing it off, for holding it in front of you? Don't you think that greed can take you down the path to hate?

Hahaha! Join the dark side.

I want to add something in here. I think there is a lot of equivocation in the word truly. Such as true love. How does that distinguish from regular love?

Now with your example, you're mentioning friends or people you care about at least to some extent. That's hardly fair.

Ok so how about this? You live across the street from an ant pile. You don't really care about the ants at all. in fact, you'd mow right over them if they were in your yard. But it also turns out that some of the ants can cook. So they're grilling hamburgers right now, which smell delicious by the way. And you're really hungry. Oh and they are obviously clean and edible. Whaddya do?

Also I agree with the statement, greed can lead to hate. But that doesn't mean greed can't conquer all by itself.

[Psyquis52]

Jun 13, 2008 12:26:45 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I want to add something in here. I think there is a lot of equivocation in the word truly. Such as true love. How does that distinguish from regular love?

Now I don't recall using the term "truly" here but if I did I can give a description. The English usage of the term "love" is really kind of broad. If you studied Hebrew you would find three terms for "love" and each three describe a different usage that we tend to wrap up as love. So I'm supposing "true" love is an attempt at further defining love since the English language does not define it very well.
That's just my excuse.

and I'm really tired.

Now with your example, you're mentioning friends or people you care about at least to some extent. That's hardly fair.

Not in the second example. In the second example it was a complete stranger.

Ok so how about this? You live across the street from an ant pile. You don't really care about the ants at all. in fact, you'd mow right over them if they were in your yard. But it also turns out that some of the ants can cook. So they're grilling hamburgers right now, which smell delicious by the way. And you're really hungry. Oh and they are obviously clean and edible. Whaddya do?

Assuming that these hamburger-cooking ants aren't outside the ordinary for me:
I think I'd have serious issues with taking them. I've never stolen food from animals before, why start now? I mean I would either have to be incredibly hateful (just outright angry about most things) or have a specific dislike for ants to go and take that hamburger from them.
Also I'm not very fond of the comparison. It would take a sick individual to run over people like ants or to think of people as no higher. Which would mean that insanity was the motivator therefore emotion is hardly the issue.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you're one of these people the same as I'm going to assume that you've buried 100 dead birds in your basement. You are sick.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 13, 2008 22:02:10 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Jun 13, 2008 12:26:45 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I want to add something in here. I think there is a lot of equivocation in the word truly. Such as true love. How does that distinguish from regular love?

Now I don't recall using the term "truly" here but if I did I can give a description. The English usage of the term "love" is really kind of broad. If you studied Hebrew you would find three terms for "love" and each three describe a different usage that we tend to wrap up as love. So I'm supposing "true" love is an attempt at further defining love since the English language does not define it very well.
That's just my excuse.

and I'm really tired.

ok sure. C-master referred to the idea of truly knowing someone, so your not the only one.
But sure, to elaborate Hebrew has three words for love, and they still don't cover the vast number of meanings in the english language. What are they? brotherly love, erotic love, and unconditional love/agape? none of those fit the bill when we're talking about the love of chocolate cake. I'm of the opinion that equivocation kills every discussion about love (in the english language anyway).

Not in the second example. In the second example it was a complete stranger.

But still human enough to be someone you care about even slightly.

Assuming that these hamburger-cooking ants aren't outside the ordinary for me:
I think I'd have serious issues with taking them. I've never stolen food from animals before, why start now?

And why not? They are really good. Trust me. I know.
...
...
...

I mean I would either have to be incredibly hateful (just outright angry about most things) or have a specific dislike for ants to go and take that hamburger from them.
Also I'm not very fond of the comparison. It would take a sick individual to run over people like ants or to think of people as no higher. Which would mean that insanity was the motivator therefore emotion is hardly the issue.
I'm going to go ahead and assume you're one of these people the same as I'm going to assume that you've buried 100 dead birds in your basement. You are sick.

I am not sick. I am a perfectly healthy (and arguably stable) individual at the moment. And my basement floor would be really hard to make holes in so I find your whole statement to be absurd. And the whole 100 thing? That doesn't seem very likely. If I bury birds as a habit, what makes you think I have exactly 100? If I had 99 or 101 then you'd be wrong. You need to reduce the commitment of some of your statements.

Ok so my little ant demonstration may have been lazy/sub-par/both, but to your point, I'm still not convinced. Why would I have to bear any kind of hatred for something or someone to kill them? What if killing or conquering was completely beneficial to me, and I'm simply indifferent to the victim? Don't we see this kind of thing all the time with serial killers?

Or perhaps indifference and hatred are intertwined?

[Psyquis52]

Jun 14, 2008 1:17:01 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

ok sure. C-master referred to the idea of truly knowing someone, so your not the only one.
But sure, to elaborate Hebrew has three words for love, and they still don't cover the vast number of meanings in the english language. What are they? brotherly love, erotic love, and unconditional love/agape? none of those fit the bill when we're talking about the love of chocolate cake. I'm of the opinion that equivocation kills every discussion about love (in the english language anyway).

Holy crap!
I didn't expect you to actually know any of the terms. That's awesome. You've impressed me once again. Me knowing the three words isn't impressive at all, it just makes sense for me but why do you know it?

But still human enough to be someone you care about even slightly.

But I really, really dislike people.

And why not? They are really good. Trust me. I know.
...
...
...

I am not sick. I am a perfectly healthy (and arguably stable) individual at the moment. And my basement floor would be really hard to make holes in so I find your whole statement to be absurd. And the whole 100 thing? That doesn't seem very likely. If I bury birds as a habit, what makes you think I have exactly 100? If I had 99 or 101 then you'd be wrong. You need to reduce the commitment of some of your statements.

Reduce the commitment? You'll have to excuse me for making base generalizations but do you really expect someone to go through your basement and count every single skeleton? It's not like I was being specific or anything. I'm just being purposely vague because it's not exactly something I'd like to investigate.

Ok so my little ant demonstration may have been lazy/sub-par/both, but to your point, I'm still not convinced. Why would I have to bear any kind of hatred for something or someone to kill them? What if killing or conquering was completely beneficial to me, and I'm simply indifferent to the victim? Don't we see this kind of thing all the time with serial killers?

Or perhaps indifference and hatred are intertwined?

A-ha! To feel genuine indifference is one thing but most serial-killers are familiar with the person they're killing. So tell me...how much indifference are they really feeling?
Now I personally don't think that literal indifference can share a lot with hatred though I think hatred and indifference share a few qualities. Not caring what happens to a person whether they live or die is indifference but these people are wishing people to die. That's pretty darn close to hatred if you ask me.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 16, 2008 22:29:57 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Jun 14, 2008 1:17:01 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

ok sure. C-master referred to the idea of truly knowing someone, so your not the only one.
But sure, to elaborate Hebrew has three words for love, and they still don't cover the vast number of meanings in the english language. What are they? brotherly love, erotic love, and unconditional love/agape? none of those fit the bill when we're talking about the love of chocolate cake. I'm of the opinion that equivocation kills every discussion about love (in the english language anyway).

Holy crap!
I didn't expect you to actually know any of the terms. That's awesome. You've impressed me once again. Me knowing the three words isn't impressive at all, it just makes sense for me but why do you know it?

sank ya very much! I remember it from a Sunday school class I took a few years ago, but I've refreshed my mind on that topic several times since then, so I still remember the meanings at least.

But I really, really dislike people.

OK, lets say you have a theophany, and God is standing in front of you. He tells you if you run around your house twice, he will save a starving child in Africa from death, and give him a luxurious life thereafter. What do you do?

Part of our nature is to be somewhat sympathetic to other human beings because we relate to them. Especially regarding pain. Ever heard the saying, "Everyone bleeds the same"? (or something like that)

...

Reduce the commitment? You'll have to excuse me for making base generalizations but do you really expect someone to go through your basement and count every single skeleton? It's not like I was being specific or anything. I'm just being purposely vague because it's not exactly something I'd like to investigate.

Who said they would be skeletons??? what if I preserved them as flesh carcasses? huh? you ever thought of that? You people and your hasty generalizations.

A-ha! To feel genuine indifference is one thing but most serial-killers are familiar with the person they're killing. So tell me...how much indifference are they really feeling?

"most serial killers" you say. What about those who kill for the thrill of it?
To answer your question, not completely indifferent. I believe it's human nature to judge a person within the first split second you see them. We're programmed that way anyway. But even if that judgement makes a person decide they hate their victim, it's not like they weren't gonna kill the victim in the first place anyway.

Now I personally don't think that literal indifference can share a lot with hatred though I think hatred and indifference share a few qualities. Not caring what happens to a person whether they live or die is indifference but these people are wishing people to die. That's pretty darn close to hatred if you ask me.

I'm not sure as a murderer that you have to fully understand the gravity of what it is you're doing to actually kill somebody. (Otherwise there'd be a lot less murderers around). In fact I think people find it very easy to devalue killing a person. I've got two examples for you. During slavery and post slavery in the south, it was fairly commonplace that the white people would make lynchings (of blacks) into a big casual social gathering. Also in biblical times (I guess during paul's time anyway) stonings would be like a picnic event for families; they'd get some food together, find a few good sized stones and go to the big event.

[warmunger]

Hell to the NO. In fact, love would make you do things to plunge your self deeper into situations that make you able to conquer nothing...

You could have dreams to be this huge football star and just becuase you love this one person who wants nothing for themselves or for you, you sink to their level and become nothing, and you love this person so much you can't move on and they refuse to work at things to reach your level, so you stick with them.

What use does love have, all emotions have a use that makes them beneficial? How does love benefit the person who's feeling it? Love seems pretty useless to me.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 25, 2008 12:48:10 GMT -5 @warmunger said:

Hell to the NO. In fact, love would make you do things to plunge your self deeper into situations that make you able to conquer nothing...

You could have dreams to be this huge football star and just becuase you love this one person who wants nothing for themselves or for you, you sink to their level and become nothing, and you love this person so much you can't move on and they refuse to work at things to reach your level, so you stick with them.

What use does love have, all emotions have a use that makes them beneficial? How does love benefit the person who's feeling it? Love seems pretty useless to me.

One way to look at it, typical man-woman love.

But what if the love of one's child or wife being sick made the football player fight long and hard and play long and hard to find a cure?